ML070190408

VYNPS - SEIS Web Reference - New Hampshire Wildlife Plan Appendices

ML070190408
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee
Issue date:	01/19/2007
From:	State of NH
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
jmm7
References
Download: ML070190408 (997)

Text

Appendix CSystemComponent Natural Communities Diagnostic (D) or Peripheral/

Occasional (P/O)

Primary Associated Matrix Forest SystemCorresponding CWS Habitat TypeAlpine tundraDiapensia shrublandDAbove HESFAlpineAlpine tundraAlpine heath snowbankDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraBigelow's sedge meadowDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraSedge - rush - heath meadowDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraFelsenmeerDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraBlack spruce/balsam fir krummholzP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraLabrador tea heath - krummholzP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraMontane landslideP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraAlpine herbaceous snowbank/rillP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraMoist alpine herb - heath meadowP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine tundraAlpine cliffP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankAlpine herbaceous snowbank/rillDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankAlpine ravine shrub thicketDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankBlack spruce/balsam fir krummholzDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankMontane landslideDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankAlpine cliffDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankAlpine heath snowbankDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankSubalpine cold-air talus barrenDAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankLabrador tea heath - krummholzP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankSubalpine sliding fenP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankMoist alpine herb - heath meadowP/OAbove HESFAlpine Alpine ravine/snowbankSedge - rush - heath meadowP/OAbove HESFAlpine baldDwarf shrub - bilberry - rush barrenDAbove HESFAlpine baldBlack spruce/balsam fir krummholzDAbove HESFAlpine baldLabrador tea heath - krummholzDAbove HESFAlpine New Hampshire's natural communities, natural community systems, and corresponding CWS habitat type. System abbreviations: LSF= Lowland Spruce - Fir Forest; HESF = High-Elevation

Spruce - Fir Forest; NHC = Northern Hardwood - Conifer Forest; HHP = Hemlock - Hardwood -

Pine Forest; AOP = Appalachian Oak - Pine Forest.

baldSheep laurel - Labrador tea heath - krummholzDAbove HESFAlpinebaldSubalpine rocky baldDAbove HESFAlpine baldDiapensia shrublandP/OAbove HESFAlpine baldRed spruce - heath - cinquefoil rocky ridgeP/OAbove HESFAlpine baldMontane heath woodlandP/OAbove HESFAlpine Montane cliffMontane acidic cliffDHESF, NHCCliffs Montane cliffMontane circumneutral cliffDHESF, NHCCliffs Montane cliffCliff seepDHESF, NHCCliffs Montane cliffRed spruce - heath - cinquefoil rocky ridgeP/OHESF, NHCCliffs Montane cliffCircumneutral rocky ridgeP/OHESF, NHCCliffs Montane cliffAlpine cliffP/OHESF, NHCCliffs Temperate cliffLowland acidic cliffDHHP, AOPCliffs Temperate cliffLowland circumneutral cliffDHHP, AOPCliffs Temperate cliffCliff seepDHHP, AOPCliffs Temperate cliffAppalachian oak - pine rocky ridgeP/OHHP, AOPCliffs Montane rocky ridgeRed spruce - heath - cinquefoil rocky ridgeDHESF, NHC, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Montane rocky ridgeRed pine rocky ridgeDHESF, NHC, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Montane rocky ridgeRed oak - pine rocky ridgeDHESF, NHC, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Montane rocky ridgeJack pine rocky ridge woodlandDHESF, NHC, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Montane rocky ridgeMontane heath woodlandDHESF, NHC, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Montane rocky ridgeMontane acidic cliffP/OHESF, NHC, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Appalachian oak rocky ridgeAppalachian oak - pine rocky ridgeDAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Appalachian oak rocky ridgeChestnut oak forest/woodlandDAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Appalachian oak rocky ridgeDry Appalachian oak - hickory forestP/OAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Appalachian oak rocky ridgeRed oak - ironwood - Pennsylvania sedge woodlandP/OAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Appalachian oak rocky ridgeRed oak - pine rocky ridgeP/OAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Rocky ridge Montane acidic talusSpruce - birch - mountain maple wooded talusDHESF, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Montane acidic talusSubalpine cold-air talus barrenDHESF, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Montane acidic talusMontane lichen talus barrenDHESF, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Montane acidic talusMontane landslideDHESF, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Montane acidic talusAlpine/subalpine pondP/OHESF, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Temperate acidic talusRed oak - black birch wooded talusDHHP, AOPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Temperate acidic talusRed oak - hickory wooded talusDHHP, AOPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Temperate acidic talusTemperate lichen talus barrenDHHP, AOPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Pitch pine sand plainPitch pine - scrub oak woodlandD AOP, HHPPine barrens Pitch pine sand plainMixed pine - red oak woodlandD (Ossipee)AOP, HHPPine barrens Pitch pine sand plainRed pine - white pine - balsam fir forestD (Ossipee)AOP, HHPPine barrens Pitch pine sand plainPitch pine - Appalachian oak - heath forestD (Merrimack)AOP, HHPPine barrensPitch pine sand plainDry red oak - white pine forestP/OAOP, HHPPine barrens Pitch pine sand plainDry Appalachian oak - hickory forestP/OAOP, HHPPine barrens Pitch pine sand plainDry river bluffP/OAOP, HHPPine barrens Coastal sand duneBeach grass grasslandDAOPDunes Coastal sand duneBayberry - beach plum maritime shrublandDAOPDunes Coastal sand duneCoastal interdunal marsh/swaleDAOPDunes Coastal sand duneMaritime wooded duneDAOPDunes Coastal sand duneCoastal shoreline strand/swaleP/OAOPDunes Maritime rocky shoreMaritime shrub thicketDAOPCoastal islands Maritime rocky shoreMaritime rocky barrenDAOPCoastal islands Maritime rocky shoreMaritime intertidal rocky shoreDAOPCoastal islands Maritime rocky shoreCoastal shoreline strand/swaleDAOPCoastal islands Maritime rocky shoreShort graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flatP/OAOPCoastal islands Maritime rocky shoreHighbush blueberry - winterberry shrub thicketP/OAOPCoastal islands Maritime rocky shoreCoastal rocky headlandP/OAOPCoastal islands Rich mesic forestRich mesic forestDNHC, HHP, AOPMatrix forest - Inclusion Rich mesic forestSemi-rich mesic sugar maple forestDNHC, HHP, AOPMatrix forest - Inclusion Rich mesic forestRich sugar maple - oak - hickory terrace forestDNHC, HHP, AOPMatrix forest - Inclusion Rich mesic forestSemi-rich Appalachian oak - sugar maple forestP/ONHC, HHP, AOPMatrix forest - Inclusion Rich north-temperate talus/rocky woodsRich red oak rocky woodsDHHP, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich north-temperate talus/rocky woodsRed oak - black birch wooded talusDHHP, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich north-temperate talus/rocky woodsTemperate lichen talus barrenDHHP, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich north-temperate talus/rocky woodsRich mesic forestDHHP, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich north-temperate talus/rocky woodsSemi-rich mesic sugar maple forestDHHP, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich north-temperate talus/rocky woodsSpruce - birch - mountain maple wooded talusP/OHHP, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slopeRich north-temperate talus/rocky woodsMontane lichen talus barrenP/OHHP, NHCRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich Appalachian oak rocky woodsRich Appalachian oak rocky woodsDAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich Appalachian oak rocky woodsRed oak - ironwood - Pennsylvania sedge woodlandDAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slop eRich Appalachian oak rocky woodsRed oak - hickory wooded talusDAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich Appalachian oak rocky woodsRich mesic forestDAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich Appalachian oak rocky woodsSemi-rich Appalachian oak - sugar maple forestDAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich Appalachian oak rocky woodsAppalachian oak - pine rocky ridgeP/OAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich Appalachian oak rocky woodsChestnut oak forest/woodlandP/OAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope Rich Appalachian oak rocky woodsTemperate lichen talus barrenP/OAOP, HHPRocky ridge & Talus slope - Talus slope High-elevation spruce-fir forestHigh-elevation spruce - fir forestDHESFMatrix forest - High-elevation spruce - fir High-elevation spruce-fir forestHigh-elevation balsam fir forestDHESFMatrix forest - High-elevation spruce - fir High-elevation spruce-fir forestNorthern hardwood - spruce - fir forestP/OHESFMatrix forest - High-elevation spruce - firHigh-elevation spruce-fir forestMontane landslideP/OHESFMatrix forest - High-elevation spruce - fir Northern hardwood - conifer forestSugar maple - beech - yellow birch forestDNHCMatrix forest - Northern hardwood - conifer fore stNorthern hardwood - conifer forestHemlock - spruce - northern hardwood forestDNHCMatrix forest - Northern hardwood - conifer fo restNorthern hardwood - conifer forestHemlock - beech - northern hardwood forestDNHCMatrix forest - Northern hardwood - conifer for estNorthern hardwood - conifer forestSemi-rich mesic sugar maple forestDNHCMatrix forest - Northern hardwood - conifer forest Northern hardwood - conifer forestNorthern hardwood - spruce - fir forestDNHCMatrix forest - Northern hardwood - conifer forest Northern hardwood - conifer forestBeech forestP/ONHCMatrix forest - Northern hardwood - conifer forest Northern hardwood - conifer forestHemlock forestP/ONHCMatrix forest - Northern hardwood - conifer forest Hemlock - hardwood - pine forestHemlock - beech - oak - pine forestDHHPMatrix forest - Hemlock - hardwood - pine forest Hemlock - hardwood - pine forestHemlock forestDHHPMatrix forest - Hemlock - hardwood - pine forest Hemlock - hardwood - pine forestBeech forestDHHPMatrix forest - Hemlock - hardwood - pine forest Hemlock - hardwood - pine forestHemlock - white pine forestDHHPMatrix forest - Hemlock - hardwood - pine forest Hemlock - hardwood - pine forestDry red oak - white pine forestDHHPMatrix forest - Hemlock - hardwood - pine forest Hemlock - hardwood - pine forestSemi-rich mesic sugar maple forestDHHPMatrix forest - Hemlock - hardwood - pine forest Hemlock - hardwood - pine forestHemlock - beech - northern hardwood forestP/OHHPMatrix forest - Hemlock - hardwood - pine fores tAppalachian oak - pine forestDry Appalachian oak - hickory forestDAOPMatrix forest - Appalachian oak - pine forest Appalachian oak - pine forestMesic Appalachian oak - hickory forestDAOPMatrix forest - Appalachian oak - pine forest Appalachian oak - pine forestAppalachian oak - mountain laurel forestDAOPMatrix forest - Appalachian oak - pine forest Appalachian oak - pine forestSemi-rich Appalachian oak - sugar maple forestDAOPMatrix forest - Appalachian oak - pine forest Appalachian oak - pine forestPitch pine - Appalachian oak - heath forestP/OAOPMatrix forest - Appalachian oak - pine forest Appalachian oak - pine forestChestnut oak forest/woodlandP/OAOPMatrix forest - Appalachian oak - pine forest Appalachian oak - pine forestDry river bluffP/OAOPMatrix forest - Appalachian oak - pine forest Alpine/subalpine bogWet alpine/subalpine bogDHESF and abovePeatland-Open Alpine/subalpine bogWooded subalpine bog/heath snowbankDHESF and abovePeatland-Open Alpine/subalpine bogSubalpine sliding fenDHESF and abovePeatland-Open Kettle hole bogLiverwort/horned bladderwort mud-bottomDMultiplePeatland-Open

Kettle hole bog Sphagnum rubellum - small cranberry moss carpetDMultiplePeatland-OpenKettle hole bogLeather-leaf - black spruce bogDMultiplePeatland-Open Kettle hole bogHighbush blueberry - mountain holly wooded fenDMultiplePeatland-Open Kettle hole bogMarshy moatDMultiplePeatland-Open Kettle hole bogLarge cranberry - short sedge moss lawnP/OMultiplePeatland-Open Kettle hole bogWater willow -

Sphagnum laggP/OMultiplePeatland-OpenKettle hole bogLeather-leaf - sheep laurel dwarf shrub bogP/OMultiplePeatland-Open

Poor level fen/bog Sphagnum rubellum - small cranberry moss carpetDMultiplePeatland-OpenPoor level fen/bogLeather-leaf - black spruce bogDMultiplePeatland-Open Poor level fen/bogLeather-leaf - sheep laurel dwarf shrub bogDMultiplePeatland-Open Poor level fen/bogHighbush blueberry - mountain holly wooded fenDMultiplePeatland-OpenPoor level fen/bogLarge cranberry - short sedge moss lawnP/OMultiplePeatland-Open Poor level fen/bogMarshy moatP/OMultiplePeatland-Open Poor level fen/bogWater willow -

Sphagnum laggP/OMultiplePeatland-OpenMedium level fenSweet gale - meadowsweet - tussock sedge fenDMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenHairy-fruited sedge - sweet gale fenDMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenLarge cranberry - short sedge moss lawnDMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenBog rosemary - sweet gale - sedge fenDMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenshrub thicketDMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenWinterberry - cinnamon fern wooded fenDMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenSweet pepperbush wooded fenDMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenSpeckled alder wooded fenDMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenFloating marshy peat matP/OMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenMarshy moatP/OMultiplePeatland-Open Medium level fenWater willow -

Sphagnum laggP/OMultiplePeatland-OpenMedium level fenSpeckled alder - lake sedge intermediate fenP/OMultiplePeatland-Open Montane sloping fenMontane sloping fenDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open Montane sloping fenMontane alder - heath shrub thicketDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open Montane sloping fenMontane heath woodlandDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open Patterned fenLiverwort/horned bladderwort mud-bottomDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open

Patterned fen Sphagnum rubellum - small cranberry moss carpetDLSF, NHCPeatland-OpenPatterned fenLarge cranberry - short sedge moss lawnDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open Patterned fenCircumneutral - calcareous flarkDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open Patterned fenLeather-leaf - black spruce bogDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open Patterned fenNorthern white cedar circumneutral stringDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open Calcareous sloping fenCalcareous sedge - moss fenDLSF, NHCPeatland-Open Black spruce peat swampBlack spruce - larch swampDMultiplePeatland-Forested Black spruce peat swampAcidic northern white cedar swampDMultiplePeatland-Forested Black spruce peat swampHighbush blueberry - mountain holly wooded fenDMultiplePeatland-Forested Black spruce peat swampRed spruce swampP/OMultiplePeatland-Forested Black spruce peat swampNorthern white cedar - balsam fir swampP/OMultiplePeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampswampDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampInland Atlantic white cedar swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampAtlantic white cedar swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampAtlantic white cedar - giant rhododendron swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampSeasonally flooded Atlantic white cedar swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampPitch pine - heath swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampSweet pepperbush wooded fenDAOP, HHSPeatland-ForestedCoastal conifer peat swampHighbush blueberry - mountain holly wooded fenDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampRed maple -

Sphagnum basin swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-ForestedCoastal conifer peat swampBlack gum - red maple basin swampP/OAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Coastal conifer peat swampHighbush blueberry - winterberry shrub thicketP/OAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampRed maple -

Sphagnum basin swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-ForestedTemperate peat swampBlack gum - red maple basin swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampSwamp white oak basin swampDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampHighbush blueberry - winterberry shrub thicketDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampHighbush blueberry - mountain holly wooded fenDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampWinterberry - cinnamon fern wooded fenDAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampHemlock - cinnamon fern forestP/OAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampRed maple - red oak - cinnamon fern forestP/OAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampRed maple - sensitive fern swampP/OAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampSeasonally flooded red maple swampP/OAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested Temperate peat swampRed spruce swampP/OAOP, HHSPeatland-Forested swampNorthern white cedar - balsam fir swampDLSF, NHCPeatland-Forested swampAcidic northern white cedar swampDLSF, NHCPeatland-Forested swampNorthern white cedar swampDLSF, NHCPeatland-Forested swampNorthern white cedar - hemlock swampDLSF, NHCPeatland-Forested swampSpeckled alder wooded fenDLSF, NHCPeatland-Forested swampCalcareous sedge - moss fenP/OLSF, NHCPeatland-Forested swampNorthern hardwood - black ash - conifer swampP/OLSF, NHCPeatland-Forested Lowland spruce - fir forest/swampRed spruce swampDLSFMatrix Forest - Lowland spruce - fir forest Lowland spruce - fir forest/swampLowland spruce - fir forestDLSFMatrix Forest - Lowland spruce - fir forest Lowland spruce - fir forest/swampMontane black spruce - red spruce forestDLSFMatrix Forest - Lowland spruce - fir forest minerotrophic swampNorthern hardwood - black ash - conifer swampDLSF, NHCMatrix Forest - Inclusion minerotrophic swampSeasonally flooded boreal swampDLSF, NHCMatrix Forest - Inclusion minerotrophic swampSpeckled alder wooded fenDLSF, NHCMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampRed maple - sensitive fern swampDHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampRed maple - black ash - swamp saxifrage swampDHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampRed maple - lake sedge swampDHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampCircumneutral seepage swampDHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampHighbush blueberry - winterberry shrub thicketDHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampHemlock - cinnamon fern forestP/OHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampRed maple - red oak - cinnamon fern forestP/OHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampRed maple -

Sphagnum basin swampP/OHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Temperate minerotrophic swampRed maple - elm - lady fern silt forestP/OHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - InclusionTemperate minerotrophic swampSeasonally flooded red maple swampP/OHHP, AOPMatrix Forest - Inclusion Forest seep/seepage forestSubacid forest seepDMultipleMatrix Forest - Inclusion Forest seep/seepage forestAcidic Sphagnum forest seepDMultipleMatrix Forest - InclusionForest seep/seepage forestCircumneutral hardwood forestDMultipleMatrix Forest - Inclusion Forest seep/seepage forestNorthern hardwood seepage forestDMultipleMatrix Forest - Inclusion (No system)Vernal woodland poolMultipleVernal pool (No system)Vernal floodplain poolMultipleVernal pool Emergent marsh - shrub swampTall graminoid emergent marshDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampNorthern medium sedge meadow marshDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampPeaty marshDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampShort graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flatDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampMedium-depth emergent marshDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampDeep emergent marsh - aquatic bedDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampCattail marshDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampAquatic bedDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampHerbaceous seepage marshDMultipleMeadow Emergent marsh - shrub swampMixed tall graminoid - scrub-shrub marshDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Emergent marsh - shrub swampHighbush blueberry - winterberry shrub thicketDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Emergent marsh - shrub swampButtonbush basin swampDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Emergent marsh - shrub swampAlder alluvial shrublandDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Emergent marsh - shrub swampAlder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicketDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Emergent marsh - shrub swampMeadowsweet alluvial thicketDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Emergent marsh - shrub swampAlluvial mixed shrub thicketDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Emergent marsh - shrub swampSeasonally flooded red maple swampDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Emergent marsh - shrub swampSeasonally flooded boreal swampDMultipleMarsh & Shrub Wetland - Shrub Wetland Sandy pond shoreSweet gale - speckled alder shrub thicketDAOP, HHPMarsh & Shrub Wetland Sandy pond shoreTwig-rush sandy turf pond shoreDAOP, HHPMarsh & Shrub Wetland Sandy pond shoreBulblet umbrella-sedge open sandy pond shoreDAOP, HHPMarsh & Shrub Wetland Sandy pond shoreWater lobelia aquatic sandy pond shoreDAOP, HHPMarsh & Shrub Wetland Sandy pond shoreHudsonia inland beach strandDAOP, HHPMarsh & Shrub Wetland Sand plain basin marshHighbush blueberry - winterberry shrub thicketDAOP, HHPVernal pool Sand plain basin marshMeadowsweet - robust graminoid sand plain marshDAOP, HHPMeadow; 2) Vernal pool Sand plain basin marshMeadow beauty sand plain marshDAOP, HHPMeadow; 2) Vernal pool Sand plain basin marshThree-way sedge - manna-grass mud flat marshDAOP, HHPMeadow; 2) Vernal pool Sand plain basin marshSpike-rush - floating-leaved aquatic mud flatDAOP, HHPMeadow; 2) Vernal pool Sand plain basin marshSharp-flowered manna-grass shallow peat marshDAOP, HHPMeadow; 2) Vernal pool Sand plain basin marshMontane sandy basin marshDAOP, HHPMeadow; 2) Vernal poolSand plain basin marshRed maple -

Sphagnum basin swampP/OAOP, HHPMarsh & Shrub WetlandSand plain basin marshSwamp white oak basin swampP/OAOP, HHPMarsh & Shrub Wetland Sand plain basin marshPitch pine - heath swampP/OAOP, HHPMarsh & Shrub Wetland Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankCobble - sand river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankHerbaceous sandy river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankTwisted sedge low riverbankDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankHerbaceous riverbank/floodplainDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankriverbank/floodplainDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankAlder alluvial shrublandDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankAlder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicketDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankMeadowsweet alluvial thicketDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankShort graminoid - forb emergent marsh/mud flatDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankMedium-depth emergent marshDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankCattail marshDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankDeep emergent marsh - aquatic bedDMultipleWatershed Groupings Low-gradient silty-sandy riverbankAquatic bedDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankHudsonia - silverling river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankDwarf cherry river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankBoulder - cobble river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankCobble - sand river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankHerbaceous sandy river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankWillow low riverbankDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankTwisted sedge low riverbankDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankHerbaceous low riverbankDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankHerbaceous riverbank/floodplainDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankHerbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplainDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankriverbank/floodplainDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankRiverbank/floodplain fern gladeDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankAlder alluvial shrublandDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankAlluvial mixed shrub thicketDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankAcidic riverbank outcropDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankCircumneutral riverbank outcropDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankAcidic riverside seepDMultipleWatershed Groupings riverbankCalcareous riverside seepDMultipleWatershed Groupings High-gradient rocky riverbankBoulder - cobble river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings High-gradient rocky riverbankCobble - sand river channelDMultipleWatershed Groupings High-gradient rocky riverbankAlder alluvial shrublandDMultipleWatershed GroupingsHigh-gradient rocky riverbankHerbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplainDMultipleWatershed Groupings High-gradient rocky riverbankRiverbank/floodplain fern gladeDMultipleWatershed Groupings High-gradient rocky riverbankAcidic riverbank outcropDMultipleWatershed Groupings High-gradient rocky riverbankCircumneutral riverbank outcropDMultipleWatershed Groupings High-gradient rocky riverbankAcidic riverside seepDMultipleWatershed Groupings High-gradient rocky riverbankCalcareous riverside seepDMultipleWatershed Groupings Montane/near-boreal floodplainforestDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainforestDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainBalsam fir floodplain/silt plainDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainHerbaceous riverbank/floodplainDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainHerbaceous/wooded riverbank/floodplainDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainriverbank/floodplainDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainRiverbank/floodplain fern gladeDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainAlder alluvial shrublandDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainAlluvial mixed shrub thicketDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainOxbow marshDNHC, HHPFloodplain forest Montane/near-boreal floodplainforestP/ONHC, HHPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainforestDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainforestDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainHerbaceous riverbank/floodplainDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainriverbank/floodplainDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainAlder alluvial shrublandDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainAlder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicketDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainOxbow marshDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainOxbow buttonbush swampDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainAquatic bedDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainforestDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Major river silver maple floodplainRed maple floodplain forestP/OHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainRed maple floodplain forestDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainforestDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainBalsam fir floodplain/silt plainDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainSycamore floodplain forestDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainSwamp white oak floodplain forestDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainforestDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainHerbaceous riverbank/floodplainDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainriverbank/floodplainDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainAlder alluvial shrublandDHHP, AOPFloodplain forestTemperate minor river floodplainAlder - dogwood - arrowwood alluvial thicketDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainMeadowsweet alluvial thicketDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainOxbow marshDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Temperate minor river floodplainOxbow buttonbush swampDHHP, AOPFloodplain forest Salt marshLow salt marshDAOPSalt Marsh Salt marshHigh salt marshDAOPSalt Marsh Salt marshSalt pannes and poolsDAOPSalt Marsh Salt marshBrackish marshP/OAOPSalt Marsh Salt marshCoastal salt pond marshP/OAOPSalt Marsh Brackish tidal riverbank marshLow brackish tidal riverbank marshDAOPSalt Marsh Brackish tidal riverbank marshHigh brackish tidal riverbank marshDAOPSalt Marsh Brackish tidal riverbank marshBrackish marshP/OAOPSalt Marsh Sparsely vegetated intertidalCoastal shoreline strand/swaleDAOPSalt Marsh Sparsely vegetated intertidalIntertidal rocky shoreDAOPSalt Marsh Sparsely vegetated intertidalSaline/brackish intertidal flatDAOPSalt Marsh Subtidal systemSaline/brackish subtidal channel/bay bottomDWatershed Grouping-Tidal Coastal Watersheds Subtidal systemTidal creek bottomDWatershed Grouping-Tidal Coastal Watersheds Subtidal systemEelgrass bedDWatershed Grouping-Tidal Coastal Watersheds Subtidal systemOyster bedDWatershed Grouping-Tidal Coastal Watersheds

NEW HAMPSHIRE BIG GAME PLAN Species Management Goals and Objectives 2006-2015 CONTENTS Click to skip to a section Introducti on and Background

................................

2 White-tailed Deer

..................................................

5 Moose....................................................................

9 Black Bear

...........................................................

12 Wild Turkey

.........................................................

14 Appendices

.........................................................

17 1. Public Working Group Mem b ers 2. Deer map 3. Moose m a p 4. Bear map 5. Turkey map New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 1 Introduction This Big Gam e Plan represents the stated goals and objectives of the New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt for deer, m oose, black bear and wild turkey m a nagem e nt for the period January 2006 through Decem ber 2015. Our ability to achieve these goals and objectives is influenced by a variety of factors including the availability of hum an and t echnical resources, the accuracy of the wildlife inform ation we gather, the level of support we receive from our constituents, the decisions m a de by the Fish and Gam e Com m i ssion, health and available habitat and even weather variables that influence wildlife reproduction, survival, and hunting season harvest rates.

Authorities From a general perspective the Departm e nt, under statute RSA 207:58, is given guidance which states:

"The legislature finds it is in the best interests of the state and its citizens to regulate, protect, restore, and conserve the wildlife resources of the state under a uniform schem e of m a nagem e nt through the fish and gam e departm e nt. The general court further fi nds that it is in the best interest of the state and its citizens that the fish and gam e departm e nt rec ognize, preserve, and prom ote our special heritage of hunting, fishing, trapping, and wildlife viewing by pr oviding opportunities to hunt, fish, trap, and view wildlife in accordance with title XVIII."

Statutory authority for setting deer seasons is found in RSA 208:2 which states in part: "The executive director, after consulting with the com m i ssion, shall have the authority to open and close the seasons for the taking of wild deer, to fix the num ber and sex lim itation for wild deer, and any other conditions governing the m e thods and m a nner of taking and reporting of the sam e , subject to -"

Statutory authority for setting m oose season is found in RSA 208:1-a which states in part: "No person shall hunt, take, or possess any m oose or any part of the carcass of a m oose taken in this state without f i rst, obtaining a valid license f o r such activities f r om the departm e nt of f i sh and gam

e. The executive director of fish and gam e , with the consent of the com m i ssion, m a y establish, by rules adopted under RSA 541-A, a hunting season for m oose in any county of the state, or any portion thereof."

Statutory authority for setting bear seasons is found in RSA 208:22 which states in part: "The executive director, with the consent of the com m i ssion, shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to opening and closing the seasons for the taking of wild black bear, fixing the num ber of wild black bear that m a y be taken and any other conditions governing the m e thods and m a nner of taking and reporting of the sam

e. The authority of the executive director as granted by this section m a y be exercised with reference to the state as a whole or for any specified county or part of a county."

Statutory authority for setting turkey seasons is found in RSA 209:12-a which states in part: "The executive director shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to: (a)Establishing seasons and bag lim its, and issuing wild turkey perm its. (b)Establishing registration stations and registration agent fees for wild turkey. (c)Specifying the m e thods for taking and registering wild turkeys. (d)The enhancem ent, protections, and propagation of wild turkeys."

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 2 Process New Ham p shire's wildlif e resources are held in tr ust by the state for the benefit of our citizenry.

Therefore, it is im portant that wildlife m a nagem e nt plans incorporate public input and to the degree practicable are consistent with public desires. Our first big gam e m a nagem e nt plan spanned the period 1997 through 2005. Inform ation considered in the form ulation of that plan included a com p rehensive public survey, eight public listening sessions, questionnaires from attendees of three public hearings and results from two 1-day stakeholder m eetings.

This Big Gam e Managem e nt Plan was form ulat ed over the course of 10-m onths, by a group of approxim a tely 30 key wildlife stakeholders identified by the Fish and Gam e Departm e nt and referred to as the Big Gam e Public W o rking Group (PW G) (see appendix 1 for a list of Public W o rking Group m e m b ers and their af f iliations). Baseline inform ation used by the PW G included results from a com p rehensive public survey of random ly selected New Ham p shire citizens and the m o st com p rehensive species assessm ent reports ever written by Fish and Gam e Departm e nt staf f. The process entailed m onthly daylong m eetings during which staff presented species inform ation and answered questions. The PW G then proceeded to identify and rank key m a nagem e nt issues and to prom ulgate regional species goals and objectives. All PW G m eetings were prof essionally f acilitated.

Upon com p letion of the draft plan, the PW G received and considered staff com m e nts, considerations and concerns. The draft plan will be subject to 4 one and one-half hour open house sessions held in Concord and Lancaster. Following incorporation of public input, the final draft plan will be subm itted to the Executive Director of the NH Fish and Gam e Departm e nt and the NH Fish and Gam e Com m i ssion for their final review and approval.

Implementation This plan will serve as the basis f o r deer, m oose, bear and turkey m a nagem e nt in New Ham p shire f o r the next 10-years. Regional population objectives will serve as operational targets for Fish and Gam e biologists, as they strive to achieve desired populati on levels over the course of the 10-year period. It is im portant to note that strategies (e.g. the num ber of days of either-sex hunting for deer, the tim ing and length of bear seasons, the num ber of m oose perm its issued, and the turkey hunting season fram ework) will continue to be subject to public input through our biennial season-setting process as described in RSA 541-A. This process includes in form al and ongoing dialogue with user groups and a very form al process which involves public hearings and the incorporation of verbal and written public com m e nt. These strategies will be used to achieve our population objectives, as defined in this Big Gam e Plan. Readers should note that this appro ach is not new; we have been using the 1997-2005 plan f o r the past 7 years. Based on the statistical variability of the various indexes used to m onitor population levels, it was determ ined that population levels at +/- 12.5% of the stated population objective would be considered "at goal", and not require a m a nagem e nt action intended to m a ke a population adjustm e nt. This will help to stabilize season structure once the population objectives are reached. This approach reduces annual or biennial adjustm e nts which m i ght be needed to affect sm all adjustm e nt, and will im prove hunter satisfaction. Our intent is to review hunting season structure every two years through biennial season setting. However, if severe winter weather or other unpredictable events occur which require im m e diate action, seasons m a y be adjusted annually. In the worst case scenario, where conditions create a short-term vulnerability which is unacceptable, em ergency closure will be im plem ented. New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 3 The prim ary advantage of long-term planning is that it provides consistency of m i ssion. That is, it allows the Departm e nt to focus its lim ited resources on specific goals and objectives over an extended period of tim

e. This approach preem pts false starts, unscheduled reversals of direction, changes in data needs, and other unproductive resource expenditures that can result from unclear or changing m a nagem e nt m a ndates. Generally speaking, big gam e m a nagem e nt goals and objectives are best achieved through slow, steady, consistent m ovem e nt. Thus, m a nagem e nt plans serve the greater good by defining long-term goals and objectives, providi ng for m a nagem e nt and data consistency, and m i nim i zing resource waste.

Limitations W ildlife diversity, viability and abundance depends on diverse and abundant wildlife habitat.

Protection and/or m a nagem e nt of wildlife habitat be nefits a m y riad of species, including m oose, deer, bear and turkey. Managem e nt of gam e populations at levels identified in this plan will protect and achieve diverse cultural, recreational, econom ic and ecological values for the significant benefit of New Ham p shire's citizenry. The effects m oose and deer can have on habitat structure, and thereby suitability f o r other species and uses, was a m a jor topic of discussion during the objective setting com ponent of those species plans. The population goa ls set for those species reflect the group's best effort to balance the econom ic and recreational value of higher populations with the resulting econom ic and ecological consequences.

According to the Society for the Protection of New Ham p shire Forests, "

New Hampshire has been the fastest-growing state in New England - and in the entir e nine-state Northeast region - for four straight decades." In addition "

New Hampshire has lost forest and cropland to development at a rate of more than 20,000 acres per year in the past five years".

Hum a n population growth and developm ent threatens New Ham p shire's wildlife resources by dim i nishing and/or degrading our habitat base and in the case of big gam e species, by lim iting (due to sprawl and fragm e ntation) our ability to effec tively m a nage gam e populations. Thus, unbridled developm ent threatens our ability to achieve the goals and objectives identif ied in this plan. W h ile it is beyond the scope of this plan to resolve all the challenges posed by existing trends in New Ham p shire's hum an population, it is im portant for us to acknowledge that these challenges are daunting, and that m a ny of the wildlife goals, objectives and values we ascribe to in New Ham p shire are im periled by these trends. Despite and because of these challenges, the Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will continue to work in partnership with local, regional and statewide land conservation interests, by providing technical and financial assistance when po ssible, to protect significant wildlife habitat.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 4 WHITE-TAILED DEER New Ham p shire's statewide deer population estim ate is approxim a tely 77,000 anim als. If the Departm e nt is successful in reaching all the W ild life Managem e nt Unit objectives identified in this plan, the deer population will approach 98,000 deer (a statewide increase of 27%). The Departm e nt anticipates it will take f r om 5 to 10 years to achieve these objectives, and/or to determ ine whether they are achievable. If achieved, New Ham p shire will still have one of the lowest density deer herds in the eastern United States. This is the result of balancing low soil productivity (and therefore potential to carry deer on the landscape), the public's desire for a deer population with certain age and sex ratio characteristics, and known im pacts deer can have on habitat for other species.

Goal 1: NH will regionally m a nage white-tailed deer populations by balancing and incorporating social, econom ic, ecological and public safety factors using the best available science/knowledge.

O b j e c t i v e s: Population objectives are sum m a rized in the following table.

Table 1. Deer population objectives by w ildlife management unit (WMU) expressed in terms of adult (1 1/2 years old and older) buck kill during the fall hunting seasons.

WMU* CURRENT LEVEL 1 1997-2005 OBJECTIVE 2006-2015 OBJECTIVE 2 MANAGEMENT ACTION REQUIRED 3 A 3 1 0 3 3 5 3 3 5 N o n e B 1 2 0 1 2 5 1 2 5 N o n e C1 5 2 9 9 1 0 0 I n c r e a s e C2 6 9 1 2 5 1 2 5 I n c r e a s e D 5 5 3 7 8 8 7 9 0 I n c r e a s e E 5 6 1 8 8 1 0 0 I n c r e a s e F 6 0 1 6 7 1 5 0 I n c r e a s e G 3 3 9 5 3 2 5 3 0 I n c r e a s e H1 3 6 2 4 6 4 4 6 0 I n c r e a s e H2 5 3 4 7 9 9 7 5 0 I n c r e a s e I1 1 6 5 3 3 1 3 3 0 I n c r e a s e I2 1 7 4 3 6 0 3 6 0 I n c r e a s e J1 2 4 1 4 8 7 3 7 5 I n c r e a s e J2 8 0 9 9 3 8 9 4 0 I n c r e a s e K 5 8 5 7 3 4 7 3 5 I n c r e a s e L 5 3 8 5 6 1 5 2 5 N o n e M 7 1 9 5 3 5 5 3 5 D e c r e a s e

• See Appendix 2 for a m a p of Deer W ildlife Managem e nt Units 1 - A 2-year average of adult buck kill during the hunting seasons is used as the index to deer populations. This "Current Level" is the average of 2003 and 2004 adult buck kills.

2 - Population objectives will be achieved when the adult buck kill is within plus or m i nus 12.5%

of the specified objective.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 5 3 - I f t h e "C u r r e n t L e v e l" i s +12.5% of the 2006-2015 objective no m a nagem e nt action is required, others are as indicated.

Table 2. Deer population objectives by w ildlife management unit (WMU) expressed in terms of buck kill per square mile of habitat.

WMU CURRENT LEVEL 1997-2005 OBJECTIVE 2006-2015 OBJECTIVE 1 MANAGEMENT ACTION REQUIRED 3 A 0.5 6 0.6 1 0.6 1 N o n e B 0.3 7 0.3 8 0.3 8 N o n e C1 0.2 7 0.5 1 0.5 1 I n c r e a s e C2 0.3 0 0.5 5 0.5 5 I n c r e a s e D 0.8 4 1.2 0 1.2 0 I n c r e a s e E 0.0 8 0.2 7 0.1 5 I n c r e a s e F 0.1 3 0.3 7 0.3 3 I n c r e a s e G 0.5 5 0.8 6 0.8 6 I n c r e a s e H1 0.9 6 1.2 3 1.2 1 I n c r e a s e H2 0.8 2 1.2 3 1.1 6 I n c r e a s e I1 0.5 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 I n c r e a s e I2 0.4 9 1.0 1 1.0 1 I n c r e a s e J1 0.5 5 1.1 2 0.8 6 I n c r e a s e J2 1.0 9 1.2 6 1.2 7 I n c r e a s e K 1.0 0 1.2 6 1.2 6 I n c r e a s e L 1.3 0 1.3 5 1.2 6 N o n e M 1.3 5 1.0 0 1.0 0 D e c r e a s e 1 - Population objectives will be achieved when the adult buck kill is within plus or m i nus 12.5%

of the specified objective.

2 - Change in Objective refers to the difference between the objective set in the 1997-2005 plan and this 2006-2015 plan.

3 - I f t h e "C u r r e n t L e v e l" i s +12.5% of the 2006-2015 objective no m a nagem e nt action is required, others are as indicated.

Objective for W M Us A and B:

The objective f o r these units is to m a intain deer populations at approxim a tely the current leve l since the quantity and quality of available natural deer wintering habitat is such that it appears to be at it's long-term ability to sustain the current population.

Objective for W M Us C1 and C2:

The objective for these units is to increase deer num bers approxim a tely 86% f r om current levels. Current densities are relatively low and winter habitat is capable of supporting higher deer num bers. Objective for W M U D: The objective for this unit is to increase deer num bers 43% from current levels. Both sum m e r and winter habitat is capable of supporting these densities and the potential f o r hum an/deer conf licts is relatively low.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 6 Objective f o r W M U E: The objective for this unit is to increase deer num bers 79% from current levels. The unit com p rises the central W h ite Mountain area and while winters are severe and habitat productivity relatively low, current deer densities are also low and habitat is capable of sustaining higher deer num bers. Objective f o r W M U F: The objective for this unit is to increase deer num bers 154%

from current levels. W h ile also including significant portions of the W h ite Mountains, this unit also has areas with less severe winters and better habitat productivity than WM U-E. Objective for W M Us G and J1:

The objective for these units is to increase deer num bers 56% from current levels. These units lie in central NH south of the W h ite Mountains and currently have sim ilar deer densities with adequate habitat capabilities and low potential f o r hum an/deer conf licts. Objective for W M U H1: The objective for this unit is to increase deer num bers 26% f r om current levels. The quality of the habitat, less severe winters, and low potential f o r deer/hum an conflicts indicate an increase of this m a gnitude is within the unit's long-term habitat carrying capacity.

Objective for W M U H2: The objective for this unit is to increase deer num bers 41% from current levels. The current population level is som e what below that in W M U H1. Habitat quality and hum an population density in this region indicate that this increase will be socially acceptable and within the habitat's capability.

Objective for W M Us I1 and I2:

The objective for these units is to increase deer num bers approxim a tely 104% from current levels. Current deer densities are lower than other portions of central New Ham p shire and the habitat is capable of supporting increased deer num bers. Objective for W M Us J2 and K:

The objective for these units is to increase deer num bers approxim a tely 21% from current levels. W h ile providing generally good habitat quality and with m ilder winters than areas further north, these units also have a higher potential for deer/hum an conflicts due to developm ent and hum an population increases. Modest increases in deer num bers are believed acceptable.

Objective f o r W M U L: The objective for this unit is to m a intain the population at approxim a tely its current level. The habitat is capable of sustaining current deer num bers but in light of the increasing developm ent and hum an population, increasing deer num bers above current levels could increase the potential for deer/hum an conflicts to unacceptable levels.

Objective f o r W M U M: The objective for this unit is to decrease deer num bers 26% from current levels. The southeast portion of New Ham p shire continues to exhibit the highest levels of hum an population growth and developm ent. The potential for deer/hum an conflicts and socially unacceptable high deer densities are greatest in this portion of the state.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 7 Goal 2: The NH deer population will be m a naged to m a intain a desirable age and sex com position.

Objective 2-1

Manage regional deer populations to ensure that yearling m a les don't exceed 50% of the adult m a le population.

Objective 2-2

To the extent this does not conf lict with the m a le age distribution objective above, m a nage deer populations to achieve a balanced sex ratio of adult does to adult bucks.

Goal 3: NH deer will be m a naged at levels within the carrying capacity of suitable habitat without supplem ental feeding program s, while m a intaining anim al and plant biodiversity.

Goal 4: The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will work alone and in partnership with state, f e deral, and public and private partners to m i nim i ze the loss of critical deer habitat and to conserve, protect and enhance deer habitat on state, federal and private lands, through education and through the expenditure of technical and financial resources.

Objective 4-1: Identif y critical deer habitat to f acilitate protection and to educate landowners and other land stewards.

Objective 4-2

Prom ote use of the Departm e nt GIS Coarse Filter habitat identif ication capabilities.

Objective 4-3

Assist local, state, federal and private conservation groups and organizations to protect, conserve and m a nage critical deer habitat.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 8 MOOSE As of 2005, the estim ated statewide m oose population was 6,400 anim als. If all the population objectives in this plan are achieved (including the proposed reduction of up to 30% in the new Connecticut Lakes Region) approxim a tely 6,100 m oose will reside in New Ham p shire. This represents a net state-wide reduction of approxim a tely 5%. Because the proposed reduction in m oose num bers in the Connecticut Lakes region will be im plem ented in increm ental steps, achievem e nt of that specif i c objective will occur earlier than the tail-end of this 10-year plan.

Goal 1: New Ham p shire will regionally m a nage m oose populations by balancing and incorporating social, econom ic, public safety and ecological factors, using the best available science.

O b j e c t i v e s: Population objectives are sum m a rized in the following table.

Table 1. Moose population objectives by manage ment region expressed in terms of moose seen per 100 hunter hours from the deer hunter mail survey.

REGION 1 CURRENT LEVEL 2 1997-2005 OBJECTIVE 2006-2015 OBJECTIVE MANAGEMENT ACTION REQUIRED 3 Conn. Lakes (A1, A2) 1 0.5 9 7.4 4 Decrease North (B, C2, D1) 6.35 8.63 6.0 N o n e White Mtn. (C1, D2, E1, E2, E3, F) 2.3 9 3.9 4 3.0 I n c r e a s e Central (G, H1, I1, I2, J1, J2) 1.6 4 1.5 0 1.5 N o n e South West (H2, K) 0.9 5 1.3 4 1.3 I n c r e a s e South East (L, M) 0.6 0 0.5 0 0.5 D e c r e a s e 1 - Note that in the 1997-2005 m a nagem e nt plan, Units A1, A2, B, C2, and D1 were com b ined as the North region.

See Appendix 3 for m oose units and regions.

2 - A 3-year average of m oose observation rates is used as the index to m oose populations. This "Current Level" is the average of 2002-2004 m oose observation rates.

3 - I f t h e "C u r r e n t L e v e l" i s +12.5% of the 2006-2015 objective no m a nagem e nt action is required, others are as indicated.

4 - This represents the full 30% reduction, see objective 1-1 below.

Objective 1-1

In the Connecticut Lakes Region (W MUs A1 and A2), reduce the population by up to 30% by 2015 to obtain a population density of 7.4 m oose seen per 100 hunter hours. It is felt that a population reduction would help reduce browse im pacts without significantly im pacting viewing or hunting opportunities.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 9 The reduction should occur in 10% increm ents at three-year intervals. It is anticipated that im plem entation of the Connecticut Lakes Tim b er Com p any Stewardship Plan will result in enhanced m oose habitat carrying capacity in the region. Im plem entation of the Stewardship Plan and its af f ect on m oose habitat will be m onitored at each 3-year interval to help assess subsequent m oose population objectives in this region. At each 3-year interval, public input will also be sought to assist m oose m a nagem e nt decision-m a king. Objective 1-2

I n t h e N o r t h R e g i o n (W MUs B, C2 and D1), m a intain the m oose population at a density of 6.0 m oose seen per 100 hunter hours. This m oose population will m a intain satisfactory viewing and hunting opportunities without im pacting regeneration or causing an increase in vehicle collision rates.

Objective 1-3

In the W h ite Mountains region (W MUs C1, E, F and D2), reduce the population density objective to 3.0 m oose seen per 100 hunter hours. This reduction will help reduce vehicle collision rates without causing a serious reduction in viewing or hunting opportunities.

Objective 1-4

In the Central region (W MUs H1, I1, I2, J1, J2 and G), retain the current objective of keeping the m oose density at 1.5 m oose seen per 100 hunter hours. The current density provides good hunting and viewing opportunities without causing high vehicle collision rates or browse levels.

Objective 1-5

I n t h e S o u t h w e s t region (W MUs H2 and K), m eet the 1995 objective of increasing the m oose population to 1.3 m oose seen per 100 hunter hours. It's anticipated that this population increase will increase viewing and hunting opportunities without adversely im pacting vehicle collision rates. Brain worm and relatively high am bient tem p eratures m a y com p licate efforts to reach this objective.

Objective 1-6

I n t h e S o u t h e a s t region (W MUs L and M), m a intain the m oose density at 0.5 m oose seen per 100 hunter hours. The high hum an population densities in this region are considered to be incom p atible with a higher m oose population due to increased opportunities for hum an/m oose interactions.

Objective 1-7

The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will Cooperatively work with the Departm e nt of Transportation, the Departm e nt of Safety, local law enforcem ent interests and other organizations, on laws, road design and educational program s designed to reduce wildlif e/vehicle collisions.

Goal 2: New Ham p shire residents and visitors will understand, appreciate and value m oose in New Ham p shire. Objective 2-1

The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will continue to use the educational and com m unication tools at its disposal to encourage people to drive safely in m oose country, to view m oose safely and to value and live with m oose. New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 10 Objective 2-2

The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will seek to educate and inform the m o toring public about the risks, causes, and avoidance of m oose/vehicle collisions to m a ke our roads saf e r f o r wildlif e and people.

Goal 3: New Ham p shire residents and visitors will understand the role of Moose in New Ham p shire's ecosystem

s. Objective 3-1

The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will continue to use the educational and com m unication tools at its disposal to help people learn how to: live with m oose, view m oose safely, drive safely in m oose country, and value, protect and m a nage m oose habitat.

Goal 4: The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will work alone and in partnership with state, f e deral, and public and private partners to m i nim i ze the loss of critical m oose habitat and to conserve, protect and enhance m oose habitat on state, federal and private lands, through education and through the expenditure of technical and financial resources.

Objective 4-1: Identif y critical m oose habitat to f acilitate protection and to educate landowners and other land stewards.

Objective 4-2

Prom ote use of the Departm e nt GIS Coarse Filter habitat identif ication capabilities.

Objective 4-3

Assist local, state, federal and private conservation groups and organizations to protect, conserve and m a nage critical m oose habitat.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 11 BLACK BEAR Upon conclusion of 2004 bear season, there was an estim ated 5,100 black bears in the state of New Ham p shire. This represents a 33% increase over the 1990 bear population estim ate of 4,000 bears. If the objectives of this plan are achieved, there will still be roughly 5,100 bears (no net change) in New Ham p shire, although the regional density of bears will have changed. Past experience suggests that it will take f r om 5 to 10 years to achieve the objectives specif i ed in this plan.

Goal 1: New Ham p shire will regionally m a nage bear populations by balancing and incorporating social, econom ic, public safety and ecological factors, using the best available science.

O b j e c t i v e s: Population objectives are sum m a rized in the following table.

Table 1. Black bear population objectives by management region expressed in terms of estimated bear density in number per square mile.

REGION* CURRENT LEVEL 1 1997-2005 OBJECTIVE 2006-2015 OBJECTIVE MANAGEMENT ACTION REQUIRED 2 North (A, B, C2, D1) 0.6 3 0.5 6 0.6 N o n e White Mtn. (C1, D2, E, F) 0.9 5 0.7 2 0.8 D e c r e a s e Central (G, I1, J1, J2) 0.4 8 0.3 1 0.6 I n c r e a s e South West-1 (H1, I2) 0.7 0 0.3 0 0.5 D e c r e a s e South West-2 (H2, K) 0.3 7 0.3 0 0.5 I n c r e a s e South East (L, M) 0.1 5 L o w 0.2 I n c r e a s e *See Appendix 4 for m a p of bear W ildlife Managem e nt Units and regions.

1 - Five-year age/sex data averages and 3-year deer hunter m a il survey observation rate averages are used as the index to bear populations. This Current Level is the estim ated 2004 bear density from m odel using 2000-2004 age/sex data and 2002-2004 observation rates from the deer hunter m a il survey.

2 - I f t h e "C u r r e n t L e v e l" i s +12.5% of the 2006-2015 objective no m a nagem e nt action is required, others are as indicated.

Objective for the North Region:

The bear population objective in the North Region will rem a in relatively consistent and represents an effort to stabilize the population at current levels. Objective for the W h ite Mountains Region:

This objective represents a m odest (16%)

reduction in the current estim ated density.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 12 Objective f o r the Central Region:

This objective represents a 25% increase from the current estim ated density based on the view that habitat quality and public interest warrant expanded bear num bers. Objective for the Southwest-1 Region:

The population objective in the Southwest-1 Region represents a 29% reduction from the current estim ated density.

Objective for the Southwest-2 Region:

The population objective in this region represents a 35% increase in the current density. This objective reflects the expressed desire of the PW G to have m o re bears in the region because of high quality habitat and strong public interest.

Objective for the Southeast Region:

This objective represents a 33% increase from the current density estim ate but continues to reflect a desire to m a intain a low density in this urban region of the state.

Goal 2: The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will im plem ent public education efforts so that residents and visitors understand and appreciate black bears, and are fam iliar with m e thods to m i nim i ze bear/hum an conflicts.

Objective 2-1

To com m unicate critical m e ssages to residents and visitors using m a ss m e dia and face-to-face interaction.

Goal 3: New Ham p shire residents and visitors will strive to m i nim i ze conf licts between bears and hum ans, using widely recognized practices endorsed and recom m e nded by the Fish and Gam e Departm e nt. Objective 3-1

To m i nim i ze bear com p laints with success m easured in the context of increased hum an population growth and on the basis of a reduced need to respond to com p laints or invest in m itigation.

Goal 4: The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will work alone and in partnership with state, federal, and public and private partners to m i nim i ze the loss of critical bear habitat and to conserve, protect and enhance bear habitat on state, federal and private lands, through education and through the expenditure of technical and financial resources.

Objective 4-1

W o rk with NH Dept. of Transportation and the Federal Highway Adm i nistration to identif y, m a intain and im prove connectivity across m a jor roads that intersect im portant and extensive docum ented bear habitat.

Objective 4-2

Prom ote use of the Departm e nt GIS Coarse Filter habitat identif ication capabilities.

Objective 4-3

Assist local, state, federal and private conservation groups and organizations to protect, conserve and m a nage critical bear habitat.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 13 WILD TURKEY There are significant differences in the population attri butes of deer, bears and m oose, as com p ared to wild turkeys. Large m a m m a ls have relatively m odest reproductive rates and relatively high survival rates, as com p ared to turkeys. From a population dynam i cs perspective they are referred to as k-selected species. Unlike large m a m m a ls, wild turkeys are prone to dram atic fluctuations in reproduction and survival, and are referred to as r-selected species. Because of these characteristics, m a nagers have less control over turkey populations than over large m a m m a ls. Sim p ly stated, factors other than hunting heavily influence the rate and direction of turkey population change. As a result, wildlife m a nagers can facilitate turkey population change, but don't precisely control it over the short-term. Our general posture is to facilitate turkey population growth by establishing conservative hunting fram eworks. W h en turkey populations reach certain threshold values, we are then afforded the opportunity to liberalize turkey hunting seasons to take advantage of additional recreational and econom ic value.

During the fall of 2004, there were an estim ated 26,000 turkeys in New Ham p shire. This reflects a 10-fold increase in statewide turkey population since 1989. W h ile it is im possible to quantify at this point in tim e, the departm e nt anticipates continued slow growth in our statewide population over the next 10-year period. This plan facilitates turkey population growth in 11 W ildlife Managem e nt Units, which have not yet m e t the threshold for liberalized seasons (the Departm e nt has set that threshold at 0.5 spring birds harvested per square m ile of turkey habitat). The capacity for continued turkey population growth in these units is unknown. Six other units are identified as candidates for liberalized seasons due to their strong existing populations.

Goal 1. NH will regionally m a nage turkey populations by balancing and incorporating social, econom ic and ecological factors using the best science available.

New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 14 Table 1. Wild turkey population status by w ildlife management unit (WMU), expressed in terms of spring kill per square mile of forested land below 2,500 feet in elevation.

WMU* CURRENT LEVEL 1 1997-2005 OBJECTIVE 2006-2015 OBJECTIVE HUNTING STRATEGY 2 A N/A N o n e N o n e B 0.0 7 N o n e >0.0 7 M a i n t a i n C1 0.0 9 N o n e >0.0 9 M a i n t a i n C2 0.1 4 N o n e >0.1 4 M a i n t a i n D1 0.5 3 N o n e >0.5 0 L i b e r a l i z e D2 0.6 8 N o n e >0.5 0 L i b e r a l i z e E 0.0 9 N o n e >0.0 9 M a i n t a i n F 0.1 9 N o n e >0.1 9 M a i n t a i n G 0.4 1 N o n e >0.4 1 M a i n t a i n H1 0.8 8 N o n e >0.5 0 L i b e r a l i z e H2 0.6 0 N o n e >0.5 0 L i b e r a l i z e I1 0.5 0 N o n e >0.5 0 L i b e r a l i z e I2 0.4 9 N o n e >0.4 9 M a i n t a i n J1 0.3 4 N o n e >0.3 4 M a i n t a i n J2 0.2 9 N o n e >0.2 9 M a i n t a i n K 0.5 6 N o n e >0.5 0 L i b e r a l i z e L 0.2 5 N o n e >0.2 5 M a i n t a i n M 0.18 None >0.1 8 M a i n t a i n *See Appendix 5 for m a p of turkey W ildlife Managem e nt Units. 1 - A 2-year average of spring kills per square m ile is used as the index to turkey population.

This "Current Level" is the average of 2003 and 2004 spring kill per square m ile. 2 - If the "Current Level" is less than 0.50 birds killed /square m ile the strategy is to Maintain current hunting seasons designed to allow potential growth. If the "Current Level" is at or above 0.50 birds killed/square m ile hunting seasons could be Liberalized to increase take.

Objective 1-1: (W MUs A, B, C1, C2, E, F, G, I2, J1, J2, L and M): Accom m odate turkey population growth. If populations reach or exceed spring harvest densities of 0.50, then consider liberalizing seasons to m a xim i ze recreational values and to stabilize population growth.

Objective1-2: (W MUs D1, D2, G, H1, H2, I1 and K): Sustain spring harvest rates at or above 0.5 birds per square m ile. These are our m o st productive turkey m a nagem e nt units. They have the im m e diate potential for sustained high turkey populations, and provide the best opportunity for additional harvest.

Goal 2: The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt will work alone and in partnership with state, federal, public, private or other conservation partners to m i nim i ze the loss of critical turkey habitat and to conserve, protect and enhance turkey habitat on state, New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 15 federal and private lands, through education and through the expenditure of technical and financial resources.

Objective 2-1: Encourage active turkey habitat m a nagem e nt on state, federal and private lands, by the provision of inform ation, technical services, and financial resources and by partnering with other land m a nagem e nt interests and turkey stakeholders.

Objective 2-2: Reduce m o wing im pacts on turkeys and other ground nesting birds through targeted education, and the developm ent of techniques designed to m i nim i ze m o wing losses.

Goal 3. New Ham p shire residents and visitors will understand, appreciate and value wild turkeys in New Ham p shire. Objective 3-1: Provide inform ation by way of m u ltiple outreach m e thods, to educate and inform the public regarding turkey ecology, behavior, habitat needs, recreational opportunities, social values including public viewing and population m a nagem e nt. New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 16 APPENDIX 1.

Public Working Group Mem b ers For The 2004/2005 Big Gam e Planning Effort

1. Roscoe Blaisdell NH Antler and Skull Club

2. Meade Cadot Harris Center For Environm ental Education

3. Bill Carney Outdoor Writer/NHF&G Com m i ssioner 4. Billy Dodd Hunting Enthusiast

5. Bob Elwell Farm Bureau

6. Rick Evans NH Timberland Owners Ass./Forester

7. Carol Foss NH Audubon/Ecologist

8. Suzanne Fournier Speaking For Anim als 9. Senator Gallus New Ham p shire State Senator

10. Raym ond Grace Granite State Bow Hunters

11. Rick Graham NH Bear Hunters Association

12. Paul Karczm arczyk Ruffed Grouse Society Regional Biologist

13. Ken Kreis, Sr NH Wildlife Federation

14. Susan Mansfield Graduate Student - Antioch

15. John McConnell USDA Wildlife Services

16. Rep. McKinney New Hampshire State Legislator

17. Buck Mercier Registered Hunting Guide

18. Tom Morrow CT Lakes Tim b er Com p any 19. Jim Morse Retail Sporting Goods Store

20. Jim Neal NH Farm Bureau/Deer Farmer

21. Glenn Norm andeau NHF&G Com m i ssioner 22. Barry Parrish USF&WS Refuge Biologist

23. Robert Phillipson, Jr.

NHF&G Com m i ssioner 24. Robert Potter Priva te Landowner/Conservationist

25. Scott Rolfe NH DRED Forester

26. Bruce Schwegler Pri vate Landowner/Conservationist

27. Fred Shepard NH Trappers Association

28. Kathy Starke White Mountain National Forest Biologist

29. Matt Tarr UNH Extension Forester

30. Edith Tucker Reporter - Coos County Dem o crat 31. Keith Weaver USF&WS Refuge Biologist

32. Charlie William s NH Chapter, National Wild Turkey Fed.

33. Scot William s on Wildlife Managem e nt Institute New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 17 APPENDIX 2.

N.H. DEER Wildlife Managem e nt Units New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 18 APPENDIX 3.

N.H. MOOSE Managem e nt Regions New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 19 APPENDIX 4.

N.H. BEAR Managem e nt Regions New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 20 APPENDIX 5.

N.H. TURKEY Wildlife Managem e nt Units New Hampshire Big Game Plan - Approved 5/18/05 - page 21 Appendix F WAP Planning Process Developing the New Hampshire Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Author: Darrel Covell New Hampshire Fish and Game worked with the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension to develop an overall organizational structure of teams to complete the WAP. We chose to have an overall Planning Team, a Core Biologist Team and a Communications and Outreach Team. The makeup of these teams was as follows:

Planning Team Steve Weber, John Kanter, Darrel Covell, Charlie Bridges, Judy Stokes, John Nelson, Ellen Snyder. Members of the Planning Team represented the Fish and Game Department's Wildlife Division, Fisheries Di vision and Public Affairs Division, as well as UNH Cooperative Extension Core Biologist Team John Kanter, Darrel Covell, Michael Marchand, Steve Fuller, Jill Kelly, Jim Oehler, Matt Carpenter, Ben Nugent, John Magee, Karen Cleveland, and Ellen Snyder. These team members represented the Fish and Game Department's Wildlife Division and Fisheries Division, as well as UNH Cooperative Extension. Communications and Outreach Team Judy Stokes, Judy Silverberg, Darrel Covell, Liza Poinier, Isobel Parke, Doris Burke, Miranda Levin, Julie Klett, Ellen Snyder, Barbara Tetreault, Jim Graham, John Kanter, and Eric Aldrich. Members of the Communications and Outreach Team consisted of Fish and Game Department members of the Wildlif e Division and Public Affairs Division; as well as external partners from the Audubon Society of New Hampshire; Public Service of New Hampshire (electric utility company); Jackson, Jackson & Wagner (public relations firm); UNH Cooperative Extension; Berlin Daily Sun (newspaper); Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests; and The Nature Conservancy.

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 1 of 21 Wildlife Summit Public Input on the Comprehensive State Wildlife Plan Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:30 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Public Service of New Hampshire Headquarters, Manchester The University of New Ham p shire Cooperative Extension is an equal opportunity educator and em ployer. UNH, U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture and N.H. counties cooperating.

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 2 of 21 Agenda Wildlife Summit - PSNH, Manchester March 25, 2004 8:30-9:00 Check-in/registration 9:00 -10:30 Plenary Session - Welcome to PSNH.

John MacDonald, PSNH VP of Operations 10:20-10:35 Break 10:35-10:50 Working Group Process.

Charlie French, Communities Specialist, UNH Cooperative Extension 10:50-12:45 Wildlife Conservation Issues - Facilitated Working Groups 12:45 Lunch 1:00 Facilitators Combine Overlapping Issues 1:45 Report outs 2:15 Voting 2:45 Wrap Up and Evaluation 3:00 Adjourn

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 3 of 21 Wildlife Summit - Topical Issues to Address

1. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Loss and Degradation As New Hampshire's population grows, people impact both the quantity and quality of fish and wildlife habitat.

New Hampshire has one of the highest growth rates of all states in the eastern U.S. Development is highest in the southern parts of our state, coinciding with the areas of greatest wildlife diversity.

Recent census data projections indicate that the centr al portion of the state will grow rapidly, as well (e.g., Lakes Region). Fish and wildlife need quality habitat, and some species are at risk of being lost due to development pressure, especially in high-growth areas of New Hampshire. The presence of people can also degrade habitat even if it is not directly altered by development.

2. Human-Wildlife Interactions Although most New Hampshire residents would like to maintain stable and healthy fish and wildlife populations, exactly how each individual defines a stable and healthy population varies according to how they interact with the environment.

Over the past decades, New Hampshire has experienced a shift from a rural to a more urbanized society. This shift is not only evident in land being developed into housing units and shopping malls but also in how people perceive wildlife and their relationship to it. Human-wildlife interaction occurs when humans come in contact with wildlife either intentionally or unintentionally. These contacts may be either positive or negative, ranging from people enjoying feeding and watching birds, to d eer eating shrubs, to potential life threatening events like moose-car collisions. Because of specific interactions, people may want certain fish

and wildlife populations increased or reduced. 3. Private Lands Stewardship Many of our state's fish and wildlife depend on privately owned lands for the food, water, cover and space they need to survive and thrive.

In 1949, renowned conservationist, Aldo Leopold, wrote, "I have read many definitions of what is a conservationist, and written not a few myself, but I suspect that the best one is written not with a pen, but with an axe. It is a matter of what a man thinks about while chopping, or while deci ding what to chop. A conservationist is one who is humbly aware that with each stroke he is writing his signature on the face of his land.

Signatures of course differ, whether written with axe or pen, and this is as it should be." Most of NH's land (88%) is in private ownership. The quality of fish and wildlife habitat on private lands is dependent on the land use and management decisions of the landowners.

4. Successful Fish and Wildlife Conservation Biologists know how to define conservation success from a biological point of view, such as numbers of active eagle nests, but other people might measure successful wildlife conservation in different ways.

"Planning for New Hampshire's wildlife future" perhaps best describes what the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan is all about. The main goal is to ensure that we maintain our state's fish and wildlife diversity. Successful fish and wildlife conservation will be measured in biological terms, but biologists will need to consider how other people might measure success.

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 4 of 21 Wildlife Summit Summary and Priorities The following section is a summary of the major themes and issues that came up for each topic across all of the breakout gr oups - the issues recorded below were amalgamated/combined for all of the groups in order to eliminate duplicate data (i.e. if two groups said that education is a top issue for a given topic, it is only listed once below). Once the issues/themes were amalgamated for each topic area, each participant of the summit was allowed to vote on the top issue/theme for each topic area. They placed a vote on the issue/them e that they felt was most important and merits the most immediate attention.

Topic 1: Habitat Loss

• Lack of planning (34 votes) identification of critical habitats regulatory controls population growth lack of wildlife as a value in planning

• Dedicated funding (24 votes)

• Fragmentation (8 votes)

• Economic pressures (6 votes)

• Awareness/education (5 votes)

• Air and water quality (2 votes)

Topic 2: Human Wildlife Interactions

• Development/land conservation (31 votes)

• Communication and education (19 votes)

• Management and managing people (4 votes)

• Transportation/recreation (3 votes) Topic 3: Private Lands Stewardship

• Education (25 votes)

• Economics (18 votes)

• Landowner rights and responsibilities (14 votes)

• Public use of private lands (6 votes)

• Government role (2 votes)

Topic 4: Successful Fish and Wildlife Conservation

• Maintain viable populations and habitats (37 votes)

• funding for protection monitoring and education (15 votes)

• Balancing conflicting desires (5 votes)

• Number and diversity of habitats (3 votes)

• People can see wildlife - residents & tourists (1 vote)

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 5 of 21 Wildlife Summit Breakout Group Issues and Actions Breakout Group A (Topics 1 and 2)

Facilitator: Frank Mitchell Participants:

Eric Aldrich (recorder), Alan Palmer (PSNH liaison), Barry Parrish, Karen P. Bennett, Lionel R. Chute, Ellen Snyder, Jan Woodbury, Allan Palmer, Jeffrey Hayes, Dan Anthony, Marilyn Bott, Chris Andrews, Kevin McCurley, Kara Glasgow, Leighlan Prout, Collis Adams, Carol R. Foss, Adair Mulligan, Joanna Pellerin, Peter Pekins, John McConnell, Sheridan Brown Topic 1 (Group A):

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Loss and Degradation: As New Hampshire's population grows, people impact both the quantity and quality of fish and wildlife habitat.

Issues: - ATV's harming habitats - Maintaining habitat connections - Fragmentation habitat - Isolation of habitats, need to monitor corridors - Road development and improv ement (fragmentation) - Shrinking lot sizes (forest parcelization) - Education as management strategy - Increasing use lawn chemicals - Land planning/zoning issues o lack of local planning and inability to implement - Invasive species - plants and animals, pathogens - Housing penetrating into landscape o invasives - Environmental change - shrinking places/opportunities for wildlife - Runoff from roads/development - Development pressures vs. important habitats - Protecting rare species on private lands - Property taxes - Recreation penetration into landscape - Recreational access/activity - $ incentives for private landowners to make habitat improvements - Tourism promotion without safeguards - Homogenization of landscape and habitat types - Lack of resources for land use planning o conservation - minimizing/mitigating development impact - Public access a problem for lakes - Lack of easement holders for small parcels - Limited time for conservation because development pressure - Road mortality o impacts of roads Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 6 of 21 - Acid rains impacts on landscape pollution Key Themes: - Economics of conservation - Environmental - Development/planning - Habitat fragmentation, degradation, loss Priority Issues

1. Impact of development and lack of planning 2. Trade-offs: promoting econom y at expense of environment

3. Habitat/fragmentation/degradation Actions Needed: - Habitat - Think beyond political boundaries - Identify specific habitat activities; work with delegation - Partnering with transportation agencie s to minimize fragmentation and incorporate wildlife crossings - Incorporate habitat protection into land use planning - Education of options - Identifying/mapping critical habitats - Map dispersal corridors o education of that - Promote road less areas - Provide build-out analyses - Replicate NEMO - Focus on localized outreach - Basic education/outreach Topic 2 (Group A).

Human-Wildlife Interactions:

Although most New Hampshire residents would like to maintain stable and healthy fish and wildlife populations, exactly how each individual defines a stable and healthy population varies according to how they teract with the environment.

in Issues: - Invasives - Pollution - Recreation - Damage/conflicts - Diseases/vectors/pathogens - Lack of information on effects human on wildlife interactions - Impacts of pets - Impacts of feeding wildlife - Impacts of collection wildlife - Newcomer's angst and impact Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 7 of 21 - Increasing awareness of wildlife control options - Impacts of lights and structur es on migrating birds and bats - Road kill - Human encroachment - Needs to be better management multi-use trails - Public sentiment for certain species - Recreation only/transportation - Juxtaposition of human activities with wildlife habitat - Public attitudes - Conflicts o disease/damage/interaction Priority Issues: 1. Edge effect

2. Transportation/recreation 3. Managing humans Actions Needed: - Education - develop education strategy o re: human/wildlife interaction - Establishing buffers and greenways - Motorized recreation restrictions - More study of all recreational impacts and other impacts - More land conservation funding Breakout Group B (Topics 2 & 3)

Facilitator: Phil Auger Participants: Laura Pfister (recorder), Doris Burke (PSHN liaison), Roberta Arbrea, Ken Kreis, Sr., Rober t Phillipson, Suzann Fournier, David Tellman, Stacy Lemieux, Mary Wright, Rob Shanks, Robert Johnson, Jon Kart, Peter Spaulding, Paul Doscher, Dea Brickner-Wood, Torene Tango-Lowry, Carol Barleou Topic 2 (Group B).

Human-Wildlife Interactions:

Although most New Hampshire residents would like to maintain stable and healthy fish and wildlife populations, exactly how each individual defines a stable and healthy population varies according to how they interact with the environment.

Issues: - Lack of understanding education on human side of their actions interacting with wildlife - Fear of what the don't know (bears) - Feeding wildlife - doesn't benefit wildlife, unhealthy Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 8 of 21 - People don't know how to deal with living in "rural" areas and how to live with wildlife - Education of hunters, e.g. impacts, coyotes - Economic development - how +/-

impacts are created by economic development - Many population sectors not receiv ing information. Dissemination of information - More collaboration between landowners, agencies, developers and businesses - More interagency collaboration to achieve human-wildlife balance - Media sensationalizes wildlife interactions (i.e. bear attacks) - Not all interactions are equal - "management" of some species (for hunting, fish/trap)causes problems for other species - People feed animals because they want to observe animals - need areas for designated observation - Hunting - success rate - NHFG needs to take a more proactive role in targeting problem areas - Management of game and non-game spec ies can have impacts on other species - Zoning regulations/local regulations se t up without any consideration of other humans - As development and habitat - more pressure on agricultural lands - Transportation as well as land use planning - Development that creates jobs is considered higher value than benefits from wildlife - Per capita land consumption - Suburbanization/sprawl and impact on our traditional interactions with wildlife (hunting, etc) - Protect predators and pr omote natural balance - Balance of game and non game species and how they fit into ecosystem - Getting people excited about whole range of wildlife - Educate people about pet impacts - Quantity vs. quality - overpopulation - Wildlife ownership - public resource or private resource of landowner - Human population outstripping wildlife population - Encourage responsible use by public to ensure continued public access to private lands - State financial support for land protection available to every community - Cultural traditions - interaction with wildlife and land use - Toxins/water supply/wildlife Priority Issues:

1. Development/land conservation - planning/zoning - personal/public responsibilities - incentives and funding for land conservation Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 9 of 21 - economic development - transportation

2. Management - stewardship - law enforcement - personal/public records - funding - collaboration (public/public+public/private) - diversity

3. Communication/education Actions Needed:

- disseminate wildlife habitat maps - improve education - funding by all user groups - establish a dialogue to improve opportunities to work together Topic 3 (Group B).

Private Lands Stewardship: Many of our state's fish and wildlife depend on privately owned lands for the food, water, cover and space they need to survive and thrive.

Issues: - Promotion of sustainable development and design - ATV pressure - Conservation vs preservation - Landowners rights/responsibilities - Requirement to post (reverse) - Share information for private landowners on land management - More opportunities for landowners and hunters to positively interact - Economic incentives for private landowners - Responsible public use (all user groups) - Tax incentives to encourage good management and/or public access - Public education on what good management is - also need to define good management - Recognition of good management (incentives) - Controls on timber liquidation - Education and assistance in invasive species management - Collaboration - public/private and public/public o businesses, developers, municipalities included - Better law enforcement - Give cities and towns a say in wildlife management (rights to decide on hunting, fishing, etc) - Outreach/education about what is special/unique at community level - Share wildlife/habitat mapping Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 10 of 21 - Identify linkages between public and private lands and coordinate management of habitat, recreation and development - Make NHI available communities (carefully) - Encouraging conservation easements - Funding Priority Issues:

1. Landowner rights and responsibilities - how to balance regulations/incentives - open space preservation (incentive)

2. Government's Role - law enforcement - education of landowner and public/recreation uses - regulations, planning/zoning - incentives - including NGO's

3. Public Use of private lands - access - who decides? (state, town, landowner, etc) - what are the limits? - definition of "traditional uses" - what measurements are used to make these decisions Actions Needed: - Education - Best forestry practices (standards) - Enforcement of regulations and incentives - Funding by All User Groups - Improve markets for forest and farm pr oducts (promotion of local products) public - Reexamine how we define access (NHFG) - Establish a dialogue - opportunity for landowners to work together Breakout Group C (Topics 3 & 4)

Facilitator:

Charlie French Participants:

Liza Poinier (recorder), Dick Durmore (PSNH liaison), Sylvia Bates, Margaret Joyce, Mary Jeppesen, Sam Doyle, Sue Mansfield, Walter Morse, Casey Hayes, Helen Hayes, Ray Whittemore, Dijit Taylor, Wendy Ward, Mark Kern, Marjory Swope, Sharon Guaraldi, Jim Taylor

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 11 of 21 Topic 3 (Group C).

Private Lands Stewardship: Many of our state's fish and wildlife depend on privately owned lands for the food, water, cover and space they need to survive and thrive.

Issues: - Losing 15-20 acres of land to private uses annually - Fragmenting large land acres into smaller - impact on wildlife, birds, amphibians - access to H 2 O - Absentee landowners - policy no voice for advocacy - Age of landowners/generational transfer - Changing population: "Most livable state" people coming in with different mindsets, backgrounds, values - Address education of non-owner uses/abuses of available land - In case of development: size of lots, cluster vs. non-cluster, versus open space - how decide what is best/depends on place - Education: "fear" of term "cluster development" - Danger that open space will be developed to sell - All local regulations are town by town - little effort to plan regionally (wildlife don't know boundaries) - Large landowners - reward system for those who share lands with multiple users and protect instead of se lling "not getting much out of it than seeing game" recognition - Easements one way to benefit (habitat restoration - other options again need to educate/be active) - Stakeholder/landowner relations (no decide -act-defend) - Education/collaboration in planning - Volunteer - "it's up to you" as landowner - people willing to help at local level - programs in place - NH gets money for showing need - 10 problems and follow up, $ is there if people come voluntarily - Demographic difference north vs. south - Fear of words - land grab - "easement" - Not enough money to involve all landowners who want to be involved - Not enough money for professional staff - Need to grow private conservation community - Public access - land "being trashed" one landowner does not see this as problem so - approach of landowner/signage - 200 acre parcels or less need emphas is - cost factors/management - Lots of small, grouped lots near roads, lakes: our focus has been on large lots but fragmentation is problem - Trails - people trails often wildlife trails - Current use can help bad tax situation - Timber management not alwa ys same as wildlife management - Current use - people "not paying fair share" people trying to limit/abolish - Escalating land values especially in south - economic pressure to develop or sell Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 12 of 21 - A way to get economic value for not developing - Impact of growth o importance of involving land trusts/conservative commission in decision making - develop relations with landowner - Education - re stewardship impact on future generations o must be innovative - Taxes older people unable to afford land - Incentives/economics - Provide landowners with information to make proper decisions, how to manage for wildlife - Those who can act can afford to o cost of dealing with issues "doesn' t matter to me" get people to feel responsibility/educate Priority Issues:

1. Education - conservation ethics - concentrate on private landowners - how to get people to "internalize" and take action - peer education - example Coverts Program - buy-in: "What's in it for me" as part of message - examples of successes and failures - describe techniques (case studies coming out soon - see digit/land

conservation) - investigate success stories in other states - what educating about? Content (where to get help/information on programs, basic biology of wildlif e, why help?, how as landowner one can do something, etc.) - partnerships

2. Economics - balance of growth vs. conservation "how much is enough?" (statewide pressures - jobs) - landowner perspective (how do individual s (they fit into larger strategic plan) - taxes - pressure to sell land for development - willingness to take risks - can we make this process (easements, etc) as

seamless as private sector?

Paperwork, appraisals, etc. - streamlining of process (see activity in Mass) - "we don't make it easy for people to do the right thing" - more resources, more staff needed - need infrastructure in place - include incentives - long-term; money available to pay for easements - money to have land agents available, surveys, etc. - lack of state funding - LCHIP Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 13 of 21 Actions Needed:

1. Education - Statewide land conservation conf erence (landowners/land activist workshops) - Audit of what's out there - help someone decide - Get beyond clutter - organize information and educational resources - Speaker's Bureau (address conservation commission, etc) - To interrupt regular course of action peer-to-peer, build trust - Find out what landowners want (Conservation Commission) - Attractive publications on unfamiliar wild life (turtles, snakes, salamanders, etc) popular for general public - Backyards/small lots-schoolyard/backyard habitat - tell public what they can do - Find Americorps - get young people working - Develop action committee - see what's already out there, develop

marketing strategy, partners, etc - "Develop constraints" map - does not include wildlife corridors (should-) - Get a feel for where elderly landowners are - hold workshops specific to

them - Id everyone who deals with landowner and give information - PLT - wild - web etc.

2. Economics - Better LCHIP funding - Conservation license plates, expand regular to off road vehicles - Value of wildlife recreation - what it means to economy - add to messaging - Working with developers on "smart" development at planning level - Change state tax structure - Pay developers not to build (see ag. Example) - Stricter zoning - Taller buildings - Incentives for rehabbing - Brownfields funding - Build wall around state - Provide better/clearer incentive for "smart" development - Wetlands regulations - change to promote more infill development - Change federal highway policy to reduce sprawl - Look creatively at other costs of low-income housing/inappropriate regulations in regions - Tax write off-duplicates no tax - Current use look at backyard incentives/tax structure

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 14 of 21 Topic 4 (Group C).

Successful Fish and Wildlife Conservation Issues: - Depends on point of view o number of species seen o number game bagged (fish caught-simply enjoying outdoors - "The unknown" - measures we develop may be impacted in future -

factors we can't control - global warming, etc. - Knowing wildlife "is out there" and something is being done - Measure success economically - st abilize tax base. Tourism revenue, retail, why people come here and why it's livable (wildlife can take some credit) recreation money > NH - License sales fishing/hunting - People need professional help/resources - number people interested rise is indicator - Don't forget habitat - diversity, inventory o What do wildlife require?

o Baseline of what you have so you can measure change - Connectivity/corridors - How is bio measurement defined - Am I seeing wildlife? (If I see bunnies, deer, plan is working) - Return on investment: show legislation/funders that creating opposite/habitat is good money investment - "Body count" - Update open space and study - Improved water quality - Depends on point of view (how measure success) - Monitoring individual species - Changes in conservation lands on GIS - fractile dimensions - Tax-revenue stable base - Value of your home - Most livable state - Value of hunting and fishing license - Do I feel things are improving? Intangible - Can we measure impact/value of wildlife economy - People policymakers - how do they feel? - Is a "healthy" wildlife doing too much damage? (deer) - Moose populations - for tourism, hunting-damaging own habitat. There is a need to reach a healthy balance - Conflicting measures need to be identified and a balance struck Priority Issue: 1. There is a need to balance conflicting interests and ideas. How one measures success depends entirely on their point of view (i.e. from a

biologist's standpoint, from a policymaker's standpoint, etc.

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 15 of 21 Actions Needed: - Surveys - public opinion.

o what would someone pay o attitudes toward wildlife - County foresters - need WILDLIFE bios in every county to serve same role - Hit hard in schools - count number that are doing things - Return on investment - measure it - State support - money leveraging - Partnerships - Increase citizen science opportunities/involvement - Publications - Monitor number of people involved - T&T/F&G work more closely to promote opportunities Breakout Group D (Topics 1 and 4)

Facilitator:

Minda Henderson Participants:

Judy Stokes (recorder), Curt Mooney (PSNH liaison), Dave Erler, Gail McWillliam Jellie, Steve Barba, Jim DiStefano, Bill Hauser, Miranda Levin, Paula Tracy, Tanya Tellman, Edith Tucker, Jasen Stock, John Bass, Curt Mooney, Fred Shepard, Ellis Hatch, Glenn Normandeau, Fred R. Allen, Michael Amaral Topic 1 (Group D):

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Loss and Degradation: As New Hampshire's population grows, people impact both the quantity and quality of fish and wildlife habitat.

Issues: - Quality air/water (mercury, lead) - Building and development - Economics of land management (working costs vs. sales) - Especially Seacoast - high cost waterf ront (and lakefront) in combo with bad job of zoning regulations sma ll lots vs. cluster development - Land ownership change inherit land without connection or understanding >

loss of habitat - Lack of permanent conservation status for habitat - Cost of creating conservation easement - money needed to help willing donors - Industrial development/growth - need controls on emissions - As development occurs in south puts pressure on North Country - job loss, targeting green activities on that area - Long term land ownership - Importance of plan coordinating efforts early on Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 16 of 21 - Address secondary impacts (residential/commercial) on highway improvements, integrat e conservation/highways - Human impact on resources - Cultural changes impact resources farm life>reduced/no connection to land - Leads to degradated habitats - Lack of "patterns' in conservation fragmented - Conservation commissions ready to act on plan when money and land becomes available (control/own land and waterfront is key) - Economic incentives for land ownership - Reward for keeping fields mowed or in use, open, early success habitat around edges - F&G will pay for this kind of work (but limited in time?) - Lack of understand of ag role in cr eating diverse wildlife habitat - at community level, save the farms - No forest land study only occasion 4 states got together - this program (SWG) has the potential also - Walmart not in VT but in Lebanon, NH find cross border solutions - cross border planning - Zoning regulations need to change from human aesthesis to critter concerns (wildlife needs) - Limited number of public open spaces

- multi uses will continue to grow. (ex. ATVs need a place to go, growi ng misuse vs. limited land open, effect on habitat) - Motorized vs. non-motorized - Even in no-motor like skiing and snowmaking needs - Changing pressures from motorized - 2 cycle engine damage to environment (phase out by 2006) - Loss of working farms - the big lots - Large landowners should have stewar dship management plan (F&G can help with money) - People don't know what to do or how to access help - country foresters, F& G etc. - More reward for people who do the rights (current use is an example) - Exotics replacing natives - Collaborate with other agencies with money - Balsams shows pictures over time of what land looked like - big educational value - town reports could get the word out - VT - Act 250 travel ways - NH - unique network of NGOS reduces need for litigation private property owners and towns are to solving issue - Strategic planning for land acquisitions - Encourage organic farming to meet demand and keep land open - Soil based planning would be a desirable result Priority Issues:

1. Air and water quality Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 17 of 21

2. Lack of planning associated with land development and population growth - limited ownership by NGO's agencies and local government - regulations vs. incentives

3. Awareness/education

4. Economics of land ownership and conservation Actions Needed: - Using current use model, created added (financial) incentive to encourage long-term ownership (20 years) higher penalty for leaving current use - Priority system considering all val ues of land - set it forth and educate people why it needs to be preserved - involve more people/organization in mapping - Provide state information to towns to make it usable (use interns) get it to Planning Boards and Conservation Commission - Regulations federal, updated regularly to protect. Air/water quality and keep pace with science (if feds won't state must) - Encourage conversation/understanding of tax for school and linked to rest of towns issues - Value of open space and low cost but generates revenue tourism, license sales - LCHIP, tap federal money to buy land Topic 4 (Group D).

Successful Fish and Wildlife Conservation: Biologists know how to define conservation success from a biological poi nt of view, such as numbers of active eagle nests, but other people might measure succe ssful wildlife conservation in different ways. Issues: - Measured by benefits of multiple species and piece of land - "If you build (conserve) it they will come" have quality A&W including pathways to it - Habitat is good - number of species, water cleansing action - Human benefit for healthy habitats? Human connection should be enabled and charged for to keep land open - Measure health of populations fish consumption guidelines gone - Maintain naturally reproducing - Native species present in abundant with the distribution so that they fulfill their role in nature and are available for consumption and non

consumption uses as appropriate - Education - most negative human/wildlife interactions are the result of lack of knowledge, consider cultural context and biological context moving closer together - ec otourism, important - Measure by number and diversity of habitats - Public needs to understand apprec iation of wildlife management in general (biological needs and management)

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 18 of 21 - Wildlife areas need funds to keep up maintenance, the developed sites (Rt. 26 example) and if conservation organizations are to do all these jobs must add to their numbers - Establish healthy habitat measure - Success = make money for tourism around habitats and wildlife (ecotourism viable sector) - Benchmarks to measure what we value o scientific measures o economic activity measures significant impact on shoulder season tourism (50% occupancy) o could get some room and meals tax if could substantiate connection - Measure of Success = no loss of native NH species Priority Issues:

1. 2. Eco-tourism

3. Maintain naturally reproducing native species present in abundance and distribution so that they fulfill thei r role in nature and are available for consumptive and non-consumpt ive uses as appropriate Number and diversity of habitats Actions Needed: - Use local component of or "cornerstone project" to id what habitats and measures - Identify coordinating person/

agency to get overall picture - Quantitative measures A & W quality - Develop a true measure of ecotourism numbers - Feedback from human users (consum ption and non consumption) on wildlife - Ask non-consumption and consumpt ion about their experience and how well we are doing - Be careful where put our resources to save species common nearby - Success = coordination of data among diverse organizations to really understand situation - Use indicator species as a measure of success (ie. Atlantic Salmon)

Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 19 of 21 Breakout Group E (Topics 1 & 4)

Facilitator:

Judy Silverberg Participants: Allison Briggaman (recorder), Scott Borthwich, Joyce El Kouarti, Bob MacGregor, Marle West, Davis W. Finch, Jim Jones, Don Normandian, Nancy Christie, Lynn Tillotson, Daryl Burtnett, Charlie Niebling, Tom Wagner, Steven Shope, Paul Karczmarcsik, Steve Taylor, Andrew Majo r, Harry Vogel, Bob Potter, John Harrigan, Isadel Paske Topic 1 (Group E):

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Loss and Degradation: As New Hampshire's population grows, people impact both the quantity and quality of fish and wildlife habitat.

Issues: - Population growth and increase recr eation use approach with big picture - Local town information - planning/zoning approaches - Economic shift for local/natural resource processes - More focus on uplands vs. just wetlands - Connecting land base with habitat needs - State financial support for habitat conservation - Adequately influential as DOT - Land fragmentation - Wetland mitigation - Invasive aquatic species/exotic species, economic & ecological - Value to not develop an area - wildlife, etc. - Habitat evaluation at town scale (funding) - Educate decision makers - strategies - Moronic media coverage - public education - Fragmentation - buy/large tracts ASAP conserve - Change laws to include habitat assessments - Change ownership - large unfragmented blocks - Public outreach/education - landowners - Benefits of current use - Change attitudes/perceptions - Consider location of protect ed areas - other nearby land user? - Preservation of open habitats - fields/meadows, balance/maintain mix - Manage habitat lands - Formal classroom education - Now maintain functional ecosystems - Triage of strategies to achieve - Wildlife corridors - Air pollution/development - Id key habitats - Funding LCHIP - Getting everyone to pay Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 20 of 21 - Long term funding - Landowners incentives for keeping open land (bed & belly tax) - Septic - Economic incentive to towns who require smart growth - Coherent policy and motorized recreation - Surface water quality and quantity - Too much intrusive government Priority Issues:

1. 2. 3. Education Identified and protect ed most important habitats with viable populations Opportunities for people to see/enjoy/appreciate wildlife Actions: Not done for this group.

Topic 4 (Group E).

Successful Fish and Wildlife Conservation: Biologists know how to define conservation success from a biological poi nt of view, such as numbers of active eagle nests, but other people might measure succe ssful wildlife conservation in different ays. w Issues: - Have access to land and see wildlife - People see and learn to appreciate wildlife in backyard - Designated funding federal and state (land acquisition - buy easements, funding programs) - Preservation of high quality habitats - Self-sustain wild fishery in lakes and streams - Contiguous 500+blocks in south east New Hampshire - Multiple strategies for preserving habitat and carrying out - Healthy documented populations for all species - Keep track of what's happening - make information public - Ecologically healthy lakes/ponds and recreational value - Prevent spread of invasives marine/aquatic/terrestrial - Funded plan monitoring and tracking results - Balanced viable populations of predators and big game - Opportunity to interact with native species within 10 minutes - Adequate funding for F&G - More sophisticated public awareness of wildlife/habitats - Balance wildlife/human needs - Viable populations and tracking - Understanding biodiversity - Sixteen and all species include T&E - Development of wildlife success index - economic/social/biological - Control of wildlife - Education - formal system - school programs - Elected officials in support of conservation Wildlife Summit Results, 3/25/04, Page 21 of 21 Priority Issue: 1. Designated funding for protec tion, monitoring and education Actions: Not done for this group.

Compr e hensive W ildlife Plan W e b Survey The New Ham p shire Fish and Gam e Departm e nt is coordinating a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan that will prioritize the state' s wildlif e and wildlif e habitat c o n s e r v a t i o n t o s a f e g u a r d o u r w i l d l i f e l e g a c y. F o r m o re on this plan, click here.

Our partners, including conservation organizations, agencies, researchers and others, are helping to develop this com p rehensive plan. To ensure the plan' s effectiveness, we need input from across the board -- biologists; lo cal, state and federal agencies; conservation groups; business leaders; private landowners; and m a ny others.

In March 2004 we held a "W ildlife Sum m it," gathering 100 people from around the state to identify m a jor wildlife issues and goals to work toward achieving through the com p rehensive wildlife conservation plan.

This forum helped us better define priority wildlife issues and actions for addressing them. Many of the survey questions below are derived from the W ildlife Sum m it. Now it's your turn! Tell us what you think about priority issues and actions for wildlife conservation in New Ham p shire. PLEASE ANSW E R EACH OF THE FOLLOW I NG QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

1) W h at do you feel are the m o st im portant issues a ffecting wildlife conservation in New Ham p shire? (text box will expand as you type)

2) - 13) THESE ISSUES W E RE DISCUSSED AT TH E W I LDLIFE SUMMIT (described above). PLEASE ANSW E R EACH QUESTION 2-13 , BASED ON HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO YOU THAT W E ADDRESS EACH ISSUE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE W I LDLIFE PLAN.

2) Loss of habitat.

1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 3) Interactions between people and wildlife.

1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 4) Stewardship of private lands. (Stewardship is the thoughtful care of one' s land.) 1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 5) Planning for wildlife in the state.

1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 6) Ensuring funding for protection, m onitoring and edu cation in order to be successful at conserving wildlif e. 1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 7) Hum a n im pact on wildlife due to developm ent. 1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 8) Com m unication/education to the public about the im pacts of hum an-wildlife interactions.

1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 9) Education about the im portance of private lands stewardship.

1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 10) Overcom i ng financial constraints so that private la nds stewardship can benefit wildlife. (for exam ple, by providing sm all grants or other financial incentives) 1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 11) A balance between the rights of landowners and the responsibilities of land ownership.

1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 12) Maintaining viable wildlife populations and their habitats.

1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 13) A balance between regulations and incentives to benefit wildlife.

1 im portant 2 som e what im portant 3 neutral 4 som e what unim portant 5 unim portant 14) One of the goals of this com p rehensive plan is to im prove the efficiency of our investm e nts in wildlife conservation. Please list existing activities or projects through which we m a y work to advance wildlife conservation in New Ham p shire. 15) W h at actions do you think we should take to conserve wildlife?

16) W h at actions, activities or projects would you be willi ng to take part in to help conserve wildlife?

17) W h at additional tools would you find useful to help conserve wildlife in New Ham p shire?

18) Of the following actions, which do you feel should be the top 3 priorities for wildlife conservation in New Ham p shire? (Please choose 3) prevent loss of wildlif e habitat m a nage wildlif e habitat encourage stewardship of private lands im prove land use planning for wildlife control invasive plants and anim als m a nage recreational im pacts on wildlife educate citizens about wildlife m a nagem e nt and conservation issues

19) W h at town do you live in?

20) In what type of com m unity do you live?

rural suburban urban 21) W h at is your gender?

femal e ma l e 22) W h at is your age?

23) How m a ny years have you lived in New Ham p shire? 24) W h at is the highest level of education that you have com p leted? som e high school high school som e college 2-year college 4-year college som e graduate school graduate school

25) W h ere do you get m o st of your conservation inform ation? (you can choose m o re than one) web sites m a gazines newspapers newsletters TV word of m outh workshops books videos booklets

26) W h at is the source of m o st of your conservation inform ation? (you can choose m o re than one) state agencies federal agencies local or regional groups conservation organizations general m e dia sources universities cooperative extension am ateur naturalists f r iends/f am ily com m e rcial source other 27) Of the following activities, in which have you participated in the last 2 years? (choose all that apply) wildlif e watching fishing hunting trapping snowm obiling ATV riding cam ping hiking canoeing/kayaking boating cross-country skiing downhill skiing m ountain biking snowshoeing

28) Com m e nts. S ubm i t R es et Appendix J: New Hampshire Comprehensive Wildlife Plan Public Participation Record Note: this does not include regular meetings of the Planning Team, Core Biologists Team and Communications and Outreach Team.

Event/Activity Date Location # People Presenter(s)/ Facilitator(s)

Description NH Estuaries Program "State of the Estuaries Conference" 10/21/03 Portsmouth 50 Jim Oehler Jim was asked to present specifically on the Comprehensive Plan during a 20 minute presentation (e.g., the info that the plan will contain, and how it can be used to support land conservation initiatives). Jim addressed the history of State Wildlife Grant funding, the purpose the Plan , the info will be contained within it, and timeline for completion. NH Association of Conservation Commissions Annual Meeting 11/1/03 Concord 30 Darrel Covell This was a 1-hour workshop on "Helping NH's Priority Birds." I presented on the topic and gathered input from conservation commission members on what additional information or resources would help them implement conservation for priority birds. I had 5 slides regarding the Comprehensive Wildlife Plan effort to make the connection between this workshop and that larger effort. DES Rivers & Watersheds Conference 11/8/03 Concord 39 Jim Oehler In a 25 minute presentation, Jim presented the habitat mapping process completed for the Piscassic and Lamprey River Watersheds. Preliminary results of this past summer's field verification surveys were also presented. Towards the end of the presentation, Jim transitioned to the state's Comprehensive Plan and presented five slides that addressed plan purpose and content. NH GIS Advisory Committee Meeting 1/14/04 Concord 26 Katie Callahan presentation on the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. Focus on coarse filter wildlife habitat analysis, applied to the entire state, and based on the NH Fish and Game wildlife habitat manual, Kanter et al. NH Fish & Game Commission Meeting 1/21/04 Concord 35 Darrel Covell Briefly described the Wildlife Summit in the context of a public participation component of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. The overall Plan will be discussed with this group in more detail at a later meeting. Forest Stewardship Committee Meeting 2/6/04 Manchester 12 Darrel Covell 20-minute oral presentation with handouts describing the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan. NH Coverts Program Alumni Training 2/7/04 Manchester 16Darrel Covell,Laura Deming We decided to focus this training on wintering eagles along the Merrimack River to make the connection between priority habitats and species and relate that to the development of the Comprehensive Wildlife Plan. The overall program focused on eagles, but Darrel described the Comprehensive Wildlife Plan in general.

NH Fish and Game Docent Training 2/12/04 Concord20AllisonBriggaman The NH Fish and Game Docents are volunteers for the department who go into schools and give presentations to students about various fish and wildlife species. They have training sessions here at HQ's on a regular basis. I was asked to present to them about the State Comprehensive Wildlife Plan and also about the current status of many nongame, threatened and endangered species and projects the Nongame Program is currently working on. Regional Blanding's Turtle Meeting 2/13/04 Concord 25MichaelMarchand The goal of the meeting was to initiate a regional approach to conserving Blanding's turtles in the Northeast. I presented a summary of NH's Comprehensive Wildlife State Plan and how it relates to the conservation of that species. Meeting with University of New Hampshire Natural Resources Professors 2/17/04 Durham 3John Kanter,Mike Marchand, Mark Ellingwood and Jim Oehler We presented on the Comp Plan to Dr. Litvaitis, Dr. Babbitt, and Dr. Taylor, and discussed their research and writing involvement in the plan. Meeting with St. Anselms College faculty 2/20/04 Manchester 3MikeMarchand, Jim Oehler, Alina Pyzikiewicz, John Kanter Presented the Comp Plan and then discussed how faculty could potentially be involved in writing/ research. NH Fish & Game Fisheries Division Staff Mtg.

3/8/04 Concord 9Kim Tuttle Gave a 1/2-hour presentation on the Comprehensive Wildlife Plan to the Fisheries Division. Aquatics Forum 3/11/04 Concord 25 Michael Marchand and John Kanter The goal of this meeting was to identify what has been done or is planned with aquatic systems in NH, identify information gaps and research needs, and identify individuals/groups that can assist with the completion of the aquatic portion of the Comprehensive State Plan. Loon Preservation Committee-Policy Committee meeting 3/19/04 Moultonborou gh 20MikeMarchand Gave a presentation of the Comprehensive Wildlife Plan, State Wildlife Grants, and how loons and the 'loon profile' fits into the bigger picture. Included in the audience was Senator Johnson. Wildlife Summit 3/25/04 Manchester 110 Darrel Covell, coordinator Conservation leaders presented on elements of the plan to a broad group of local, state and federal governments/agencies, conservation groups, business leaders, private landowners. A facilitated session enabled participants to provide input on priority wildlife conservation issues.

NH Planning and Zoning Conference 5/8/04 Manchester 30Darrel Covell and Laura Pfister This was a 1.5-hour program, titled, "Planning for Wildlife." The Comprehensive Wildlife Plan information was described and an interactive, public participation session took place to address improved planning for wildlife. NH Coverts Project Alumni Workshop 5/22/04 Exeter andStratham 15 Darrel Covell This was an all-day program for NH Coverts Cooperators (UNH Cooperative Extension volunteers working for wildlife). The content of the program focused on several critical habitats identified in the Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy - extensive grasslands, old fields, early successional forest, salt marsh and riparian/shoreland habitat. Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps Presentation for Communities and Conservation Groups at Exeter River Local Advisory Group 5/25/04 Epping 32Darrel Covelland Jim Oehler We gave a 2-hour presentation, provided maps and data cd's to conservation commission and other community decision-makers. The topic was the Fish and Game's GIS-based analysis of significant wildlife habitat in New Hampshire, known as the "Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps." The program discussed this and its connection to the overall Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps Presentation to Wildlife Division Staff 6/15/04 Concord 25Darrel Covelland Jim Oehler We gave a 1.5-hour presentation to Wildlife Division staff. The topic was the Fish and Game's GIS-based analysis of significant wildlife habitat in New Hampshire, known as the "Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps." The program discussed this and its connection to the overall Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation

Strategy. Squam Lakes natural resource mapping workshop 7/8/04 Holderness 25 Katie Callahan 30 min Presentation of coarse-filter wildlife habitat analysis in context of Squam watershed natural resources mapping project (vol., not as F&G rep.) Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps Presentation for Communities and Conservation Groups 7/15/04 Concord 25Darrel Covell and Eric Orff We gave a 2-hour presentation, provided maps and data cd's to conservation commission and other community decision-makers. The topic was the Fish and Game's GIS-based analysis of significant wildlife habitat in New Hampshire, known as the "Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps." The program discussed this and its connection to the overall Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps Presentation for Communities and Conservation Groups at Moose Mountains Greenway Meeting 7/20/04 Middleton 15 Darrel Covell I gave a 2-hour presentation, provided maps and data cd's to conservation commission and other community decision-makers. The topic was the Fish and Game's GIS-based analysis of significant wildlife habitat in New Hampshire, known as the "Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps." The program discussed this and its connection to the overall Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. UNH Cooperative Extension Land Use and Water Quality Team Meeting 7/21/04 Boscawen 15 Darrel Covell I solicited the groups i nput on water quality and agri culture-related strategies. Also worked with this group to include Extension-related Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy ideas into the Team's work plan.

Green Mountain Conservation Group: Watershed Weekend 7/24/04 Ossipee 30MichaelMarchand Gave a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> presentation of research and threats to turtles in NH and efforts that the Comprehensive State Plan is undertaking to protect turtles in the future. I explained the coarse filter analysis and gave examples of how we plan to map species specific habitat. Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps at UNH Cooperative Extension Forestry and Wildlife Staff Meeting 7/26/04 Boscawen 15 Darrel Covell Gave a 30-minute presentation, provided maps and data cd's to Extension Forestry and Wildlife Program staff. The topic was the Fish and Game's GIS-based analysis of significant wildlife habitat in New Hampshire, known as the "Coarse Filter Wildlife Maps." The presentation discussed this and its connection to the overall Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 8/10/04 Concord 28 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 9/9/04 Holderness 26MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 10/7/04 Concord 25 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Northeast Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee Meeting 10/25-26/04 Cape Charles, VA 30 Darrel Covell and John Kanter Gave a 30-minute presentation to Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy coordinators and others. Described New Hampshire's public participation efforts and plans. Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 11/4/04 Concord 24 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Transportation and Wildlife Meeting 12/1/04 Concord 30MikeMarchand, Darrel Covell Members of the Core Biologists Team met with NH Department of Transportation staff and others interested in transportation issues as relates to the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Discussed actions to take to improve Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 12/2/04 Concord 24 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Coastal Islands Habitat Conservation Partners Meeting 12/6/04 Concord 10Steve Fuller,Darrel Covell Individuals from the conservation community were brought together to review and rank coastal island habitat threats. Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 1/6/05 Concord 21 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 2/3/05 Concord 28 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. UNH Cooperative Extension Forestry and Wildlife Program Staff Meeting 2/15/05 Boscawen 14 Darrel Covell Updated Extension staff on the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and solicited input into the process and content related to forestry.

VINS Wildlife Habitat Mapping workshop 2/26/05 Lebanon 16 Katie Callahan 30-minute presentation of Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (vol., not as F&G rep.) Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 3/3/05 Concord 21 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 3/31/05 Concord 22 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Big Game Open House Plan Review and Input Session 4/26/05 Concord (2

sessions) 25 MarkEllingwood Open house information stations provided the public with the opportunity to view individual draft plans. Public circulated amongst stations and offered input verbally or in writing regarding draft plans for deer, moose, bear and turkey. Big Game Open House Plan Review and Input Session 4/28/05 Lancaster (2

sessions) 20 MarkEllingwood Open house information stations provided the public with the opportunity to view individual draft plans. Public circulated amongst stations and offered input verbally or in writing regarding draft plans for deer, moose, bear and turkey. Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum 5/3/05 Concord 24Darrel Covell,Judy Silverberg, Charlie French, Liza Poinier Brought together individuals who had participated in the Wildlife Summit in March 2004. We developed some broad strategies and actions to address threats to our wildlife species and their habitats. We asked participants to identify additional strategies and actions and vote on priorities in the areas of habitat fragmentation, air and water quality, growth and development, and transportation. Big Game Plan Public Working Group Meeting 5/12/05 Concord 20 MarkEllingwood Members of the Big Game Plan Public Working Group met to provide public input into the development of the Big Game Plan. Selecting Biodiversity Indicators for Sustainable Forestry Workshop 5/19-20/05 Lancaster 40 Mark Zankel,John Roe, John Hagan, Andrew Whitman This workshop brought together many partners interested in sustainable forestry concepts and provided insights into indicators that would be useful in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Members of the Core Biologists Team (Darrel Covell, Steve Fuller and Jim Oehler) provided input at the workshop and brought concepts back to use in Strategy development. NH GIS Conservation Collaborative Meeting 5/24/05 Concord 15 Darrel Covell Updated members of the GIS conservation community and funders on the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation St rategy. Also received some input on the GIS approach and distribution possibilities. Newfound Lake Region

Association 7/2/05 Bridgewater 40 Katie Callahan 30 min. presentation Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy in context of Newfound wshed. natural resources mapping project (vol., not as F&G rep.) NHF&G/UNHCE Watershed

Ecology Institute 2005 7/26/05 Bow 10 Katie Callahan 1 day intro to GIS/GPS/wildlife habitat mapping, incl 20+/- min presentation on Comprehensive Wildlife Cons Strategy TOTAL 1163 Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum NH Fish & Game Department Concord, NH May 3, 2005

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 2 Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum Fish and Game Department Headquarters, Concord, NH Tuesday, May 3, 2005 8:30 - 12:00 noon Agenda 8:30 Coffee and Refreshments 9:00 Welcome, Introductions and Wildlife Strategy Update (John Kanter) 9:20 Small Group Discussion Overview (Charlie French) 9:30 Early Morning Sessions (Habitat Fragmentation, 1A; Air and Water Quality, 1B) 10:15 Report Back on Habitat Fragmentation and Air & Water Quality 10:30 BREAK 10:45 Later Morning Sessions (Growth and Development, 2A; Transportation, 2B) 11:30 Report Back on Growth and Development and Transportation 11:45 Wrap-up 12:00 Adjourn Facilitators:

Charlie French (lead), UNH Cooperative Extension; Judy Silverberg, NH Fish & Game Department Recorders: Darrel Covell, UNH Cooperative Extension; Liza Poinier, NH Fish & Game Department Participants (24 people):

Bill Hauser, NH Dept. of Transportation; Adair Mulligan, Connecticut River Joint Commissions; Mark Kern, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ray Whittemore, Ducks Unlimited; Steve Wright, National Wildlife Federation; Nancy Christie, NH Lakes Association; Stacy Lemieux, White Mountain National Forest; Jeffrey Hayes, North Country Council; Dave Tellman, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator/NH Tree Farmer; Tanya Tellman, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator/NH Tree Farmer; Marjory Swope, NH Association of Conservation Commissions; Fred Allen, Pemigewasset Valley Fish and Game Club; Wendy Ward, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Ellen Snyder, wildlife consultant; Scott Borthwick, NH Trappers Association; Bob Potte r, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator; Roberta Arbree, landowner; Fred Shepard, NH Trappers A ssociation; Suzanne Fournier, Speaking for the Animals; Isobel Parke, Jackson, Jackson & Wagner (public relations firm); Andrew Major, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service; Chris Andrew, Newts (consulting herpetologist); Dea Brickner-Wood, Great Bay Resource Protection Partnership; Sh eridan Brown, Office of U.S. Senator John Sununu The people who participated in this event were from the March 2004 Wildlife Summit. This was considered a continuation of their public participation work begun at that time. As a part of the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, we developed some broad strategies and actions (see following pages) to address threats to our wildlife species and their habitats. These were relevant to the issues we addressed at this Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum. The issues we focused on were habitat fragmentation, air and water quality, growth and development, and transportation (described below). We enclosed relevant results from our March 2004 Wildlife Summit and the August-October 2004 Wildlife Plan Web Survey. These were sent ahead of the forum to help W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 3 participants prepare to contribute to the di scussion. Specifically, we sought input on the strategies, actions and tools that would help us address the four issues mentioned above.

Issue Descriptions 1A. Habitat Fragmentation Habitat fragmentation is the breaking up of habitat blocks into smaller sizes, as a result of roads and development. Smaller blocks of habitat reduce the number of wildlife species that can occupy an area. Due to the high number of fragmenting features in southern New Hampshire, blocks of a few hundred acres may be significant to wildlife. In northern New Hampshire blocks of a few thousand acres would be considered important to wide-ranging animals.

1B. Air and Water Quality Fish and wildlife populations may decline if air or water quality is degraded substantially. Acid rain, caused by pollutant emissions, travels on winds for hundreds of miles and may impair air quality, acidify lakes and streams, harm sensitive ecosystems, and degrade visibility. Aquatic organisms, especially sensitive species, have been impacted. Acid rain in some areas has directly killed fish, caused reduced growth, deformed skeletons and failed reproduction. Emissions from large power plants in the Midwest and urban areas to the south of New Hampshire provide the vast majority of the pollution that causes unhealthy air quality, impaired visibility, acidification of lakes and forests, and mercury contamination in New Hampshire. However, local hotspots also occur near major emissions sources from within our state. Run-off from developed areas, agricultural fields, high-use recreation areas a nd other sources (a.k.a., non-point source pollution) can also degrade water quality from pesticides, salt, sedimentation, etc. 2A. Growth and Development Clearing for houses, roads and associated utilities eliminates and fragments habitat and increases exposure to non-native and invasive plants and animals. New Hampshire has one of the highest growth rates of all states in the eastern U.S. Development is highest in the southern parts of our

state, coinciding with the areas of greatest w ildlife diversity. Recent census data projections indicate that the central portion of the state w ill grow rapidly, as well (e.g., Lakes Region). Fish and wildlife need quality habitat, and some species are at risk of being lost due to development pressure, especially in high-growth areas of New Hampshire. The presence of people can also degrade habitat even if it is not directly altered by development.

2B. Transportation As New Hampshire's population grows, our trans portation infrastructure grows with it. New Hampshire has one of the highest growth rates of all states in the eastern U.S. Development is

highest in the southern parts of our state, coinciding with the areas of greatest wildlife diversity.

Recent census data projections indicate that the cen tral portion of the state will grow rapidly, as well (e.g., Lakes Region). Roads reduce and fragment habitat, subject wildlife to potential vehicle kill, and introduce additional disturbance and road salts into the environment.

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 4 Broad Strategies and Actions Agency Regulation and Policy 1 Review Development Permits 2 Implement Access Control Measures Conservation Planning 3 Prioritize Lands for Protection 4 Identify Unfragmented Blocks 5 Identify Landscape Connections 6 Identify High Risk Areas 7 Identify Focal Populations 8 Identify Critical Habitat Focal Areas 9 Restore Connectivity Education and Outreach 10 Foster Supply/Demand for Native Plant Landscaping11 Advocate BMP's for Agriculture 12 Advocate Adoption of Sustainable Forestry 13 Advocate Adoption of Alternatives to Pesticides 14 Advise Town Conservation Commissions 15 Advise Commercial Horticultural Organizations Environmental Review and Mitigation 16 Review Ski area Expansion 17 Review Pesticide Permits 18 Review Forest Management Plans 19 Review Boating Access Projects 20 Mitigate Wildlife Impacts in Focal Areas 21 Mitigate Wildlife Impacts Habitat Management 22 Develop Urban Wildlife Management Plan Inter-Agency Regulation and Policy 23 Establish IRAT (Transportation) 24 Establish IRAT (Pollutants) 25 Establish IRAT (Development) 26 Develop BMP's For Agriculture IRAT = Interagency Risk Assessment Team Land Protection 27 Protect Unfragmented Blocks 28 Develop Land Protection Program 29 Advise Town Conservation Commissions Landowner Incentive Program 30 Implement Backyard Habitat Program Research 31 Test Experimental Road Crossing Structures 32 Research Terrestrial Pathways for Bio-accumulation 33 Restore Connectivity

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 5 Wildlife Summit Summary and Priorities (from March 2004)

The following section is a summary of the major themes and issues that came up for each topic across all of the breakout gr oups - the issues recorded below were amalgamated/combined for all of the groups in order to eliminate duplicate data (i.e. if two groups said that education is a top issue for a given topic, it is only listed once below). Once the issues/themes were amalgamated for each topic area, each participant of the summit was allowed to vo te on the top issue/theme for each topic area. They placed a vote on the issue/them e that they felt was most important and merits the most immediate attention.

Topic 1: Habitat Loss

• Lack of planning (34 votes) identification of critical habitats regulatory controls population growth lack of wildlife as a value in planning

• Dedicated funding (24 votes)

• Fragmentation (8 votes)

• Economic pressures (6 votes)

• Awareness/education (5 votes)

• Air and water quality (2 votes)

Topic 2: Human Wildlife Interactions

• Development/land conservation (31 votes)

• Communication and education (19 votes)

• Management and managing people (4 votes)

• Transportation/recreation (3 votes) Topic 3: Private Lands Stewardship

• Education (25 votes)

• Economics (18 votes)

• Landowner rights and responsibilities (14 votes)

• Public use of private lands (6 votes)

• Government role (2 votes)

Topic 4: Successful Fish and Wildlife Conservation

• Maintain viable populations and habitats (37 votes)

• funding for protection monitoring and education (15 votes)

• Balancing conflicting desires (5 votes)

• Number and diversity of habitats (3 votes)

• People can see wildlife - residents & tourists (1 vote)

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 6 Topic 1: Habitat Loss (from Wildlife Summit)

Actions Needed (1 st group): - Habitat - Think beyond political boundaries - Identify specific habitat activities; work with delegation - Partnering with transportation agencie s to minimize fragmentation and incorporate wildlife crossings - Incorporate habitat protection into land use planning - Education of options - Identifying/mapping critical habitats - Map dispersal corridors o education of that - Promote roadless areas - Provide build-out analyses - Replicate NEMO - Focus on localized outreach - Basic education/outreach Actions Needed (2 nd group): - Using current use model, created added (financial) incentive to encourage long-term ownership (20 years) higher penalty for leaving current use - Priority system considering all val ues of land - set it forth and educate people why it needs to be preserved - involve more people/organization in mapping - Provide state information to towns to make it usable (use interns) get it to Planning Boards and Conservation Commission - Regulations federal, updated regularly to protect. Air/water quality and keep pace with science (if feds won't state must) - Encourage conversation/understanding of tax for school and linked to rest of towns issues - Value of open space and low cost but generates revenue tourism, license sales - LCHIP, tap federal money to buy land Actions Needed (3 rd group): - Identify and protect most important habitats with viable populations - Education Topic 2: Human-Wildlife Interactions Actions Needed (1 st group): - Establishing buffers and greenways - Motorized recreation restrictions - More land conservation funding Actions Needed (2 nd group): - disseminate wildlife habitat maps - improve education - funding by all user groups - establish a dialogue to improve opportunities to work together W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 7 Topic 3: Private Lands Stewardship Actions Needed (1 st group): 1. Education - Statewide land conservation conf erence (landowners/land activist workshops) - Audit of what's out there - help someone decide - Get beyond clutter - organize information and educational resources - Speaker's Bureau (address conservation commission, etc) - To interrupt regular course of action peer-to-peer, build trust - Find out what landowners want (Conservation Commission) - Attractive publications on unfamiliar wild life (turtles, snakes, salamanders, etc) popular for general public - Backyards/small lots-schoolyard/backyard habitat - tell public what they can do - Find Americorps - get young people working - Develop action committee - see what's already out there, develop

marketing strategy, partners, etc - "Develop constraints" map - does not include wildlife corridors (should-) - Get a feel for where elderly landowners are - hold workshops specific to

them - Identify everyone who deals with landowner and give information - PLT - wild - web etc.

2. Economics - Better LCHIP funding - Conservation license plates, expand regular to off road vehicles - Value of wildlife recreation - what it means to economy - add to messaging - Working with developers on "smart" development at planning level - Change state tax structure - Pay developers not to build (see ag. Example) - Stricter zoning - Taller buildings - Incentives for rehabbing - Brownfields funding - Build wall around state - Provide better/clearer incentive for "smart" development - Wetlands regulations - change to promote more infill development - Change federal highway policy to reduce sprawl - Look creatively at other costs of low-income housing/inappropriate regulations in regions - Tax write off-duplicates no tax - Current use look at backyard incentives/tax structure W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 8 Topic 4: Successful Fish and Wildlife Conservation Actions Needed (1 st group): - Surveys - public opinion.

o what would someone pay o attitudes toward wildlife - County foresters - need WILDLIFE bios in every county to serve same role - Hit hard in schools - count number that are doing things - Return on investment - measure it - State support - money leveraging - Partnerships - Increase citizen science opportunities/involvement - Publications - Monitor number of people involved - T&T/F&G work more closely to promote opportunities Actions Needed (2 nd group): - Use local component of "cornerstone pr oject" to identify what habitats and measures - Identify coordinating person/

agency to get overall picture - Quantitative measures A & W quality - Develop a true measure of ecotourism numbers - Feedback from human users (cons umption and non consumption) on wildlife - Ask non-consumption and consumpt ion about their experience and how well we are doing - Be careful where put our resources to save species common nearby - Success = coordination of data among diverse organizations to really understand situation - Use indicator species as a measure of success (ie. Atlantic Salmon)

Actions Needed (3 rd group): - Get designated funding for protection, monitoring and education W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 9Wildlife Plan Web Survey Results (from August-October 2004)

Question 15. What actions do you think we should take to conserve wildlife? (950 respondents. Multiple responses possible.)

1. 1 Protect or provide habitat (22%)

1. 2 Educate about wildlife conservation (21%)

1. 3 Hunting or fishing related action (21%)

1. 4 Improve or manage habitat (9%)

1. 5 Smart growth - better planning for development (7%)

Question 16. Of the following actions, which ones should be the top three priorities for

wildlife conservation in New Hampshire? (1256 re spondents. Multiple responses possible.)

1. 1 Prevent loss of habitat (86%)

1. 2 Educate citizens about wildlife management (52%)

1. 3 Improve land use planning (40%)

1. 4 Encourage stewardship (36%)

1. 5 Manage recreational impacts (25%)

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 10Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum Results Summary The following is a summary of those strategies and actions receiving 2 or more votes. Please see additional detail on these and other strategies, actions and tools in the pages that follow.

1A. Habitat Fragmentation 9 votes: Develop land protection program (includes the following) - identifying funding mechanisms and political strategies - enable communities to dedicate timber taxes to conservation 8 votes: Education strategies (includes the following) - education packets with resources and funding sources - education for agencies/regulators - education strategy that targets schools/young people - communicate with landowners - more information sharing with general public 7 votes: Identify and prioritize lands for protection 6 votes: Protect unfragmented blocks 3 votes: Mitigate wildlife impacts (includes better mitigation/enforcement) 3 votes: Develop incentives for developers (includes the following) - incentives to promote conservation of green corridors - tax rules/laws to encourage these protections (closer look at current use) - promote smart growth by encouraging "infill" developers in exchange for green corridors or other long term value parcels 2 votes: Advise town conservation commissions 1B. Air and Water Quality 12 votes: Land, water and wetland protection 6 votes: Identify high risk areas 4 votes: Education and outreach 3 votes: Environmental review and mitigation 2 votes: Inter-agency regulation and policy 2A. Growth and Development 9 votes: Land protection (includes the following) - protect unfragmented blocks - develop land protection program 8 votes: Advise town conservation commissions (and planning boards) 7 votes: Education and outreach (includes education through the Tree Farm Program) 5 votes: Agency regulation and policy (includes the following) - encourage cluster zoning/tax incentives - develop model ordinances/regulations to be used by towns/cities 4 votes: Conservation planning 3 votes: Prioritize lands for protection 3 votes: Research (includes test experimental road crossing structures) 2 votes: Identify critical habitat focal areas 2 votes: Environmental review and mitigation (includes mitigate wildlife impacts)

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 11 2B. Transportation 8 votes: Conservation planning - collaborate with Dept. of Transportation from beginning 4 votes: In-lieu fee proposal under consideration (pay mitigation fee to be used in conservation projects elsewhere) 4 votes: Education: advise town planning boards about best management practices for wildlife W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 12 Overview of Results: Specific actions, tools and comments suggested by participants on yellow sticky notes appear as "sub-bullets," indented, and in red. Priorities were done by sticky dots and are represented by numbers in front of the bullets. 1A. Habitat Fragmentation Facilitator: Judy Silverberg; Recorder: Liza Poinier Participants (15 people): Bill Hauser, NH Dept. of Transportation; Mark Kern, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ray Whittemore, Ducks Unlimited; Steve Wright, National Wildlife Federation; Stacy Lemieux, White Mountain National Forest; Jeffrey Hayes, North Country Council; Fred Allen, Pemigewasset Valley Fish and Game Club; Scott Borthwick, NH Trappers Association; Bob Potter, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator; Roberta Arbree, landowner; Fred Shepard, NH Trappers Association; Isobel Parke, Jackson, Jackson & Wagner (public relations firm); Chris Andrew, Newts (consulting herpetologist); Dea Brickner-Wood, Great Bay Resource Protection Partnership; Sh eridan Brown, Office of U.S. Senator John Sununu Agency Regulation and Policy 1 - Review Development Permits

- state permit review should be meaningful and thorough.

Add staff especially for wetland review. Regulations should be tightened toward additional environmental protec tion. State should develop wetland mitigation bank to which regional/state entities have access to funds for conservation projects.

- Help prevent developmental loopholes and slow process down so organizations and agencies involved can make better informed decis ions, especially wetlands! Conservation Planning 2 - Prioritize Lands for Protection

- send letter to communicate with town governing bodies. - Identify Unfragmented Blocks - Identify Landscape Connections - Identify High Risk Areas - Identify Focal Populations 1 - Identify Critical Habitat Focal Areas - State should participate/fund projec t area specific habitat inventory studies to further refine critical habitat areas.- Restore Connectivity Education and Outreach - Advocate Adoption of Sustainable Forestry 2- Advise Town Conservation Commissions

- Some towns still do not have conservation co mmissions and/or planning boards.

New State Law: mandate conservation commissions and planning boards. - Help conservation commissions prioritize their acti vities. Provide funding to Cooper ative Extension to do this. Environmental Review and Mitigation - Review Ski area Expansion - Review Forest Management Plans - Mitigate Wildlife Impacts in Focal Areas 2 - Mitigate Wildlife Impacts - Charge developers with a fee when their project impacts wildlife resources in a significant way.

- Off-site mitigation on larger - connected areas.

- New protection of significant vernal pools

protect 3 acres for every acre of upland lost.

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 13Inter-Agency Regulation and Policy - Establish IRAT (Transportation) - Establish IRAT (Development)

IRAT = Interagency Risk Assessment Team Land Protection 6 - Protect Unfragmented Blocks

- Form groups around the state like the Great Bay Partnership and fund them well.

- Form/create statewide "conser vation council" of groups, individuals to support appropriate political action.

- Develop regional plans for land protection.

- Provide more incentive for donat ion of land or conservation easements.

- Develop long-term funding source for land protecti on. Make available a portion of property - transfer tax for land protection (for example).

- Create additional tax or other incentives for l andowners to protect critical habitats that they own. - Upgrade timber harvesting regs. in view of current logging practices.

- Money for LCHIP (Land & Communi ty Heritage Investment Program).

2 - Develop Land Protection Program - Organize/coordinate all available state programs (include technical assistanc e and funding opportunities). Effectively communicate (clearinghouse through website/state agency awareness and regional/single phone number contact). Clarify state land pr otection priorities and communicate.

- Develop a consistent and well endowed fundi ng source for state land protection (LCHIP) - Easier access to current use laws. - Advise Town Conservation Commissions Research - Restore Connectivity Additions to strategy/action list 1

• support wildlife issues in local master plans 5

• identifying/prioritizing lands for protection

• organized method of informing Conservation Commission come up with formal education process for Conservation Commission across counties so all communities have the ability to be on same "page" and function efficiently and effectively staff from Fish & Game to advise, educate and work with Conservation Commission Conservation Commission should know Fish & Game laws before making decisions Newsletter to conservation commission and planning boards Utilize/fund regional planning commissions to provide outreach and education to Conservation Commission Email listserv to share information throughout the conservation community Conservation Commission and Planning Board receive copies of final report of forum/wildlife plan

• provide a review or overlay of regional/locally identified growth areas

• town Conservation Commission need a lot more help - get up to speed on "what's really happening" a forum/meeting with town planners and Conservation Commission and Planning Board on this wildlife forum W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 14person at Fish & Game or a partner organization whose job is to interact with commissions and planning boards and give them information; same person could develop education packets, etc.

• more input/education - less politics at Conservation Commission level-"can't develop everything" 1

• better mitigation/enforcement

• pass and enforce laws that actually deter offenders and repeat violators other than small, insignificant fines 1

• coordination in planning efforts among agencies

• institute state agency planning clearinghouse to coordinate statewide planning and development initiatives 4

• Identifying funding mechanisms and political strategies for making it happen. Bringing in hunting and fishing communities form task group to identify funding sources and leverage funding. Form political action group to secure funding, promote conservation strategies thru rules and regulations. Fund conservation initiatives through broad-based tax system Identify potential partners/stakeholders 1

• contact and communicate with landowners

• figure out funding

• Conservation Commission need lots of education (e.g. sustainable forestry)

• they are working on inconsequential things 1

• logging regulations need improvement 1

• even if Conservation Commissions knew more regarding wildlife-"we (Conservation Commission) have no teeth"-but one thing we can control is water

• give conservation commission the authority to ask developers for a wildlife impact plan on cluster developments

• possible for Conservation Commission to be given option to ask developers to consider needs of wildlife in planning (important study)

• small parcels becoming surrounded

• need some money to buy development rights

• could be some regional/planning for greenways in between small parcels?

• new strategies for smaller parcels 1

• promote smart growth by encouraging "infill" developers in exchange for green corridors or other long term value parcels

• transferable development rights

• sometimes wetlands law promotes sprawl instead of reverse-

• move "restore connectivity" 1

• education - look at more information sharing with general public - choices they're making on their own land

• educate landowners of value and importance of critical habitat or resources on their property and importance of maintaining them

• developers to help them do this 1

• look at tax rules/laws to encourage these protections (closer look at current use) 1

• develop incentives for developers to promote conservation of green corridors W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 15discourage sprawl by giving financial incentives to developers to use cluster planning by installing sewer systems so that one acre was not necessary for individual septic systems highlight or celebrate towns and developments that take wildlife needs into their planning as a quality of life issue for residents on tourism develop committee of state and conservation organizations to work with commissions, legislators, developers, etc to search out funding and help agencies, town and individuals to get that funding 2

• develop education "packets" to discuss options-list resources and funding sources, etc. regional information meeting with state, federal and local officials to discuss wildlife issues and funding sources. Distribute funding information packets. Many conservation commission members may be unable to attend a day time meeting so a night time might be better.

• lack of planning - opportunity with federal grants for greater collaboration

• way to improve communications so Conservation Commission can collaborate with other conservation commissions-list servers?

• threats to tax benefits associated with giving conservation easements 2

• education for agencies/regulators to "know what they're talking about" state laws should be easy to read and understand

• cost-sharing programs (like Fish & Game's mowing program)

• most conservation organization have eyes on "big beautiful lands"...but help must be given to smaller parcels in south or they'll be gone 1

• add planning boards 3

• enable communities to dedicate timber taxes to conservation develop model legislation and solicit legislative sponsor educate/work with NH legislators for legislation enabling timber tax - conservation use 2

• education strategy that targets schools/young people - start early

• land stewardship should be required education

• enforce existing regulations like shoreline protection act 1B. Air & Water Quality Facilitator: Charlie French; Recorder: Darrel Covell Participants (8 people): Adair Mulligan, Connecticut River Joint Commissions; Nancy Christie, NH Lakes Association; Dave Tellman, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator/NH Tree Farmer; Tanya Tellman, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator/NH Tree Farmer; Wendy Ward, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Ellen Snyder, wildlife consultant; Suzanne Fournier, Speaking for the Animals; Andrew Major, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Planning 6 - Identify High Risk Areas 4 - Education and Outreach - Model ordinance for towns. - Advocate Adoption of Sustainable Forestry

- Partnerships W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 16- Advocate Adoption of Alternatives to Pesticides - Advise Town Conservation Commissions - Advise Commercial Horticultural Organizations 3 - Environmental Review and Mitigation - State technical committee request federal money (farm bill $) to go toward funding forest management plans and have money for review of plans (Cooperative Extension, Fish & Game, Fish & Wildlife) to promote sustainable forestry. - Review Pesticide Permits - Review Forest Management Plans - Review Boating Access Projects 2 - Inter-Agency Regulation and Policy - Establish IRAT (Pollutants) - Develop BMP's For Agriculture IRAT = Interagency Risk Assessment Team 12 - Land Protection (and water & wetland protection) - Protect Unfragmented Blocks - Develop Land Protection Program - Advise Town Conservation Commissions Research - Research Terrestrial (and aquatic) Pathways for Bio-accumulation

• add soil to "Air & Water Quality" Missing

• state

• shoreland protection act

• overlay district for buffers (e.g. for lower stream orders)

• local regulation

• flood plain protection ordinances Education

• boating as relates to invasive species

• separate strategy on "Water Protection"

• identify pristine waters - difficult management

• invasive keeping out, monitoring where Conservation Planning

• identify pristine waters (e.g. like designated rivers)

• Land and Water Protection - riparian corridors connecting

• vernal pool protection especially not under wetlands protection add strategy that NH Fish & Game is to actively support pro-environment bills (e.g. reduce mercury, reduce auto emissions)

"Land & Water Wetlands Protection"

• e.g. protect beavers creating habitat

• BMP's for agriculture > clarify "add to existing" W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 17* voluntary currently

• are they following?

• consequence for not

• regulating forestry/liquidation issue (e.g. Vermont & Maine laws)

• environmental review

• evaluate T.M.D.L.'s in highest risk areas "total maximum daily load"

• enforce existing regulations (few staff)

• advise Conservation Commission *

• updating them on regulations/fact sheets

• Conservation Commission powers - authorize/not just advisory

• research - especially mercury issues > fish bioaccum disagree that conservation commissions should be regulatory Conservation Planning

• green infrastructure planning Inter-agency regulations/policies

• army corp policy - cutting down buffers

• review old management plans/need new direction

• nitrogen in Great Bay (actions at that)

• targeted action items - geographically Land Protection

• lobby 100% land use tax to conservation

• soil carrying materials > water

• how to deal with air quality?

• lobbying Congress/agency > air quality standards

• state move on auto emissions

• key strategy - land and water protection

• high risk areas/critical habitat

• riparian connections

• model ordinances (especially for towns)

• problem loss of O.S.P.

• e.g. OSP > cell tower ordinance model

• water quality unifying concept (the issue)

• broader, more inclusive justification in model ordinance (e.g. drinking H 2 O, habitat, etc.)

• advocate - lawmakers at all levels (include state)

Tools

• web-based, update frequent, not just state maintained

• model ordinance

• empower/fund R.P.C's

• LCHIP, forest legislation, drink H 2O, etc = money

• raise RPC level of expertise

• ensure partnership use as a "tool" W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 18Dept. of Envt'l Services has a water quality standards advisory committee, wildlife interests should be better represented on issu es such as TMDL's and nitrogen in Great Bay (Vern Lang is on this for USFWS, is Fish & Game well represented 2A. Growth and Development Facilitator: Charlie French; Recorder: Darrel Covell Participants (15 people):

Ray Whittemore, Ducks Unlimited; Steve Wright, National Wildlife Federation; Nancy Christie, NH Lakes Association; Stacy Lemieux, White Mountain National Forest; Jeffrey Hayes, North Country Council; Dave Tellman, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator/NH Tree Farmer; Fred Allen, Pemigewasset Valley Fish and Game Club; Wendy Ward, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Scott Borthwick, NH Trappers Association; Bob Potter, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator; Roberta Arbree, landowner; Fred Shepard, NH Trappers Association; Chris A ndrew, Newts (consulting herpetologist); Dea Brickner-Wood, Great Bay Resource Protection Part nership; Sheridan Brown, Office of U.S.

Senator John Sununu 3 - Agency Regulation and Policy Review Development Permits 2 State agency review of existing rules and regulations and evaluation of effectiveness in terms of the protection of the intended environmental out comes (i.e., wetland regulations, etc.)

Implement Access Control Measures

- Expand Shoreland Protection Act to 3 rd order streams. 4 - Conservation Planning 3 - Prioritize Lands for Protection 3 Make a portion of property transfer tax available for habitat protection/management 4 Build statewide coalition of individuals/groups regarding wildlife conservation. Form statewide conservation council with representatives of all NH conservation groups.

Convene annually for policy/

strategy discussion/debate.

Identify Unfragmented Blocks Identify Landscape Connections Identify High Risk Areas Identify Focal Populations 2 - Identify Critical Habitat Focal Areas Restore Connectivity 6 - Education and Outreach Foster Supply/Demand for Native Plant Landscaping

- Stronger legislation on wooly adelgid and sudden oak death. Do not allow importation of plants or logs from infected areas.

1 - Advocate Adoption of Sustainable Forestry 5 - Advise Town Conservation Commissions - Implement education programs for participants of conservation commissions who are not involved in conservation field and don't hav e critical skills needed for sound planning.

- Add staff at Fish & Game to advise, educate and work with conservation commissions when it comes to wildlife habitat.

Advise Commercial Horticultural Organizations

- Develop handout for new home owners relative to preferred species of plants to use for landscaping and what should be avoided. Dist ribute to real estate agents as well.

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 191 - Environmental Review and Mitigation Review Ski Area Expansion Mitigate Wildlife Impacts in Focal Areas

- DES wetlands rules allow an excellent, undist urbed forested wetland, for example, to be dredged and converted to an open pond, obliterating comple x, natural habitat and substituting man-made habitat that is considerably less valuable. Revise wetlands rules?

1 - Mitigate Wildlife Impacts

- Develop broad-based funding mechanism for wildlif e conservation. Develop political strategy for supporting wildlife conserva tion initiatives. Form political action groups regarding this element.

Habitat Management Develop Urban Wildlife Management Plan Inter-Agency Regulation and Policy (IRAT = Inter-agency Risk Assessment Team)

Establish IRAT (Transportation)

Establish IRAT (Development) 4 - Land Protection 1 - Protect Unfragmented Blocks 4 - Develop Land Protection Program 2 - Advise Town Conservation Commissions

- Develop models of planning board and conserva tion commission Best Management Practices - they don't like to have to think and may lean "our way".

- Add staff at Fish & Game to advise, educ ate and work with conservation commissions on wetlands and other wildlife habitat.

- Report of this wildlife planning project to conservation commissions and planning boards. Website for their use for information /suggestions. Landowner Incentive Program Implement Backyard Habitat Program 1 - Research 2 - Test Experimental Road Crossing Structures Restore Connectivity 5 communicate more (newsletter?) to town governing bodies, conservation commissions, planning boards. (Applies to all above). 6 Develop state-level conservation committee of state agency and conservation groups to compile and disseminate information, advise town commissions/boards & push strategies (Applies to multiple strategies above).

Missing

• local regulations under "regulations and policy"

• include regional regulations under "regulations and policy"

• include federal regulations under "regulations and policy"

• state regulations no logging >2500' elevation 1

• encourage cluster zoning/tax incentives 1 -

• develop model ordinances/regulations that can be used by towns/cities

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 20 Conservation Planning

• think big -landscape features - let wildlife determine actions regardless of political boundaries

• prioritize water bodies (aquifers, lakes, rivers, wetland)

• concern regarding private property in priority zone

• develop strategy for funding conservation projects (priorities)

• identify who is responsible for doing conservation planning

• coordination of activities

• encourage cluster zoning/tax incentives Education

• see habitat fragmentation education actions

• Fish & Game staff help with questions - Conservation Commission

• website access point for that

• training program for Conservation Commission

• Under #10 (Foster supply/demand for native plant landscaping) -

hemlock wooly adelgid, sudden oak death (enforce regulations to prevent)

• include state lawmakers on policy issues

• include select boards

• laws against unsustainable forestry 1

• Tree Farm Program

• education thru that to understand management planning

• mitigate wetland impacts

• preserve riparian corridors

• environmental (e.g. forest harvest>x acres) review process for forest management plans

• no current laws have to do

• extend shoreland protection > 3 rd order streams

• expand to add "forest" management plan

• carrot incentive

• roadside planting, tree types

• discourage deliberate feeding

• develop lake management plans (inter-agency) 1

• provide more state staff/money to manage/restore state-owned lands/water adequately fund (and fill) state staff positions (NH Fish & Game, Div. of Forests and Lands, stewardship program) to provide regular stewardship and management of state owned properties Inter-agency

• concern over separating development and transportation into 2, maybe combine 1 rate Land Protection

• add water and air to Land Protection

• comes back to good planning

• define "protection" - maybe open space planning when development 1

• add planning board to "Conservation Commission"

• work with congress regarding conservation easement tax benefits W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 21* strengthen shoreland protection act

• consider exotic invasive

• concern regarding management of smaller protection parcels (tax incentives for donor to make money)

• umbrella organization to manage smaller parcels (money issue)

Landowner incentives

• see above too

• let people know what wildlife will come if you encourage wildlife Research

• need to research the economic impact of growth and development on our public waters; recreational value/use, the fisheries, loons and other wildlife

• "changing landscape" analysis at local/regional level

• state participate in habitat inventory studies on project basis

• research best plantings in developments (compile existing information) information/recommend pamphlet or booklet/website to advise nurseries/landscapers.

2B. Transportation Facilitator: Judy Silverberg; Recorder: Liza Poinier Participants (8 people): Adair Mulligan, Connecticut River Joint Commissions; Mark Kern, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; Tanya Tellman, landowner/NH Coverts Cooperator/NH Tree Farmer; Marjory Swope, NH Association of Conservation Commissions; Ellen Snyder, wildlife consultant; Suzanne Fournier, Speaking for the Animals; Isobel Parke, Jackson, Jackson & Wagner (public relations firm); Andrew Major, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Agency Regulation and Policy Review Development Permits

- Promote the Roads Scholar program and look at Vermont's Better Back Roads program for extra ideas.

Train local road agents. 1 - Conservation Planning

- Develop GIS maps of riparian connectivity and unf ragmented habitat blocks by region to guide location of roads and development away from these areas.

- Information to local conservation commission & planning boards on which areas are most important.

Prioritize Lands for Protection Identify Unfragmented Blocks Identify Landscape Connections Identify High Risk Areas Identify Focal Populations Identify Critical Habitat Focal Areas Restore Connectivity Education and Outreach - Expand Fish & Game constituency: more Wildlife Journal readers; change flavor of Wildlife Journal to cover these key issues more often; reduce segregation into "nongame", "game", etc. - show connectedness not segregation.

- Continue outreach/education on wildlife friendly dr iving - "brake for wildlife", Eric Orff's campaign.

Foster Supply/Demand for Native Plant Landscaping

- Fish & Game, DOT and other state agencies use native plantings in their project and on their lands.

W i l d l i f e C onservat i on St rat e gy Forum , M a y 3, 2005 22 - Keep the state nursery going strong and establish satellite nurseries around the state.

- Lists to be provided to nurseries for their inventory.

- A brochure for developers to avoid in vasive species and offer native species.

Advise Town Conservation Commissions Environmental Review and Mitigation Review Boating Access Projects Mitigate Wildlife Impacts in Focal Areas 2 - Mitigate Wildlife Impacts

- mitigation should be near to ot her protected lands; not isolated.

Habitat Management Develop Urban Wildlife Management Plan Inter-Agency Regulation and Policy (IRAT = Inter-agency Risk Assessment Team)

Establish IRAT (Transportation)

- task IRAT with formulating state polic y to address the issue of secondary development - Fish & Game and DOT have a systematic approach to keeping each other informed of projects of mutual interest.

Establish IRAT (Development)

Land Protection Protect Unfragmented Blocks 1 - Develop Land Protection Program

- support/provide fund for protection.

Advise Town Conservation Commissions Research 1 - Test Experimental Road Crossing Structures

- have road crossing structure experiment on Route 2 in Randolph.

Restore Connectivity 5

• collaborate with DOT on planning from the beginning educate towns on importance of early participation in DOT planning for road create GIS layer (DOT) that maps out pr ojected projects over the next 10 years. Overlay that with un-fragmented blocks, connections, critical habitat, etc. Identify where the conflicts are now to see whether rerouting project plans can be changed early

• support regional planning - local boards, etc.

• inter-agency includes state, federal 1

• DOT never includes riparian buffers-should be part of their MO Dept. of Envt'l Services/Fish & Game insist that DOT back off on the riprap near streams and over plant wherever possible provide list of buffer plants (native) and planting/maintenance requirements to DOT project managers (CRJC has posted at www.crjc.org/riparian buffers.htm) 1

• bridge and culvert inventory for aquatic connectivity 1

• green infrastructure concept could be integrated into all aspects of planning 1

• figuring out recreation/transportation/habitat balance in planning projects

• Identify and remove invasive plant species Wildlife Conservation Strategy Forum, May 3, 2005 23expand IPANE inventory

• education - brake for wildlife/drive with wildlife in mind type of "campaign"/materials (user friendly/suggestions)

• need process to discuss and establish mitigation "banking" and large scale, DOT bank, state funded (have done for Ammonoosuc) 4

• in lieu fee proposal under consideration provide political support for the in-lieu fee bill

• has passed Senate, now in House

• continue to experiment with materials other than salt for snowy roads establish "test" sections of roadways and conduct a scientific study looking at efficiency of different de-icing agents

• look at runoff from parking lots (snow removal)

• railroad - may be able to work with them to not mow down riparian buffers

• wildlife passages between stored train cars

• under research - establish research for moose collisions

• developers could use advise on how to plan non-straight road systems-shared driveways, widths and surfaces of roads, less hardtop, etc. 4

• education: advise town planning boards (they must approve these road systems) "BMPs" for wildlife - implemented suggestions model ordinances for towns (Planning Boards) i.e. protect deer yards train private/consulting wildlife biologists to guide development/transportation

projects (town level/private developers)

• are constructed wetlands still common DOT practice? (they've gotten better at locating but ecology still not top concern) focus on multiple small infiltration areas for stormwater rather than larger constructed wetlands that stay inundated and trap wildlife 1

• secondary development - to what degree does DOT or town take responsibility to protect habitat before planning? (currently, encouraged to provide for future access)

• DOT should provide money for likely secondary impacts to help with green infrastructure

• class V & VI roads - protection is fragile 1

• needs to be more private wildlife consultants who can guide planners/individuals - training programs?

• education & outreach tool for Fish & Game staff: NH Fish & Game to take an active role in advising about wildlife protection in regards to existing and planned roads. * "Wildlife management" with transportation in mind

• Encourage population levels of species that would minimize potential for human-animal collisions Appendix L: Species and Habitat Profile Template Critical Habitat: [Name]

required for habitat profiles and species profiles Focal Species: [Name]

not required for habitat profiles Federal Listing: [Esa Listing Status]

not required for habitat profiles State Listing: [Rsa 212 Listing Status]

not required for habitat profiles Affected Species: [Species List]

not required for species profiles Global Rank: [Rank]

for habitats, list ranks of included NHB natural communities; for species, state species rank State Rank: [Rank]

for habitats, list ranks of included NHB natural communities; for species, state species rank Author: [Last Name, First Name, M.I.] Affiliation: [Name]

NOTE: Italicized text should not be included in the profile. The format of the profile must follow the formatting of this template. Other formatting considerations such as time and date styles, abbreviations and acronyms, punctuation, citing literature in text, figure formats, etc. are covered in a separate document (Profile submission guidelines.doc). All bracketed fields must be completed to the extent possible.

Element 1: Distribution and Habitat

1.1 Habitat

Description

[For habitat profiles, briefly list the key biotic and/or abiotic attributes that distinguish this habitat type from other habitat types. For species, briefly list habitat attributes that provide critical life history requirements.]

This field is a quick reference. Details about habitat health and quality will be described in subsequent fields where relevant. Citations for relevant literature on life history and habitat requirements should be included in Element 6.

1.2 Justification

[Briefly state the reason for conservation concern, the overall trend, or the pattern of change that indicates imperilment of the species and/or habitat (e.g., "throughout the northeast, alpine habitats are shrinking as timberline shifts upward in elevation"). Briefly justify the selection of this species/habitat and/or the exclusion of associated species (e.g., although species richness is typically lower in alpine habitats than adjoining systems, alpine habitats are rarer and generally have higher rates of endemism). Briefly link the health of the species/habitat to the health of taxonomically or ecologically associated species/habitats (e.g., changes in alpine communities may serve as an indicator of climate change, and provide early warning of impacts to wildlife at lower elevations).]

This field is a brief summary of the reasoning behind the inclusion of the species/habitat in the plan. Details about specific threats or anticipated benefits of conservation

are described in subsequent fields where relevant.

1.3 Protection

and Regulatory Status:

[List pertinent (excluding ESA and RSA 212) federal, state, or local laws, ordinances, and rules regulating the take, transport, or use of the species and/or habitat.]

Proposed changes to NHB rankings, protection, or regulatory status s hould be addressed under Element 4 - Conservation Actions. 1.4 Population and Habitat Distribution:

[Briefly summarize the current and historic state range in a regional context (e.g. "approximately 75% of the northeastern population occurs within NH"). Describe spatial patterns of distribution within NH (e.g., biogeographical clustering vs. randomness, as in "clustered along northern rivers" or "scattered throughout the White Mountains

"). Briefly identify patterns of isolation and fragmentation.]

This field is a brief summary of broad patterns of distribution. Details about specific locations will be described in subsequent fields.

1.5 Town Distribution Map

[Map the distribution of species and/or habitats at the town level based on species occurrence

data.] To be provided by NHFG.

1.6 Habitat

Map Completion of this field is required only for partners contracted to map species or habitat types.

Relevant habitat maps will be provided to others that may require them to complete their habitat or species profiles. [Describe the methodology used to map the locations of current, historical, and/or potential habitat patches, and evaluate limitations in the reliability of the resulting maps because of data, logistical, contractual, or methodological constraints.]

Provide a shapefile containing polygons delineating current, historical, and/or potential habitat patches. Further guidance will be provided to habitat-mapping contractors regarding information desired for shapefile attribute

tables. 1.7 Sources of Information: [Briefly describe the sources or processes used (e.g., literature review, databases, meetings and forums, expert review or consultation) to gather information on the distribution of species/habitat during the planning process. Literature and other sources should be cited in text where

applicable throughout the profile and full citations should be included in the profile bibliography in Element 6.]

1.8 Extent

and Quality of Data: [Justify the level of detail provided by describing the extent and quality of existing data on the distribution of the species/habitat across the state.

Clearly identify gaps in knowledge about the distribution of the species/habitat.]

1.9 Distribution

Research: [List high priority survey, monitoring, and research efforts needed to provide unknown information about the distribution of the species/habitat.]

Element 2: Species/Habitat Condition

2.1 Scale

[Identify an appropriate conservation planning unit (for use in Elements 2, 3, and 4) that directly links to polygons of species' populations and/or habitat patches. For instance, polygons may be: 1) grouped (e.g., by ecoregion subsection, Wildlife Management Unit, etc.), to reduce the number of units to a more manageable size for analysis; 2) split, to provide a more detailed ecological analysis (this may be the best option when polygons extend across a large geographic area); 3) treated individually. Spatial extent, configuration, and number of polygons should be considered.]

Scale will be resolved by the habitat mapper.

2.2 Relative

Health of Populations: [Describe the relative abundance of the KEY populations/habitat occupying units mapped at the

scale defined in section 2.1. Historical and pot ential occurrences should be included. Describe trends or viability of KEY populations in enough detail to identify where and what conservation actions need to take place under Element 4.]

2.3 Population

Management Status:

Not required for habitat profiles.

[Describe the relative efficacy of ongoing population management efforts with enough detail to identify populations potentially requiring conservation actions under Element 4, and to identify potential conservation opportunities.]

2.4 Relative

Quality of Habitat Patches:

Required for all profiles. [Summarize the relative quality of KEY units mapped at the scale defined in section 2.1 in terms of their ability (or potential) to provide key ecological attributes

of niches and habitats (e.g. availability of forage, nest sites, cover, diversity, and productivity).

Describe KEY habitat patches in enough detail to identify where and what conservation actions need to take place under Element 4.]

2.5 Habitat

Patch Protection Status: [Summarize the relative protection status (e.g., fee, easement, other) of KEY units mapped at the scale defined in section 2.1 (e.g., ninety percent of mapped habitat patches in Wildlife Management Unit F are in fee-simple ownership by the state of New Hampshire, Division of Forests and Lands).]

2.6 Habitat

Management Status: [Summarize the relative efficacy of ongoing habitat management or restoration efforts with enough detail to identify habitat patches potentially requiring conservation action and to identify potential conservation opportunities.]

2.7 Sources

of Information: [Describe the process used (e.g., literature review, databases, meetings, expert review and consultation) to study the condition of species/habitat that were consulted during the planning process. Literature and other sources should be c ited in text where applicable and included in the profile bibliography in Element 6.]

2.8 Extent

and Quality of Data:

[Justify the level of detail provided by describing the extent and quality of existing data on the condition of species/habitat across the state. Cl early identify gaps in knowledge to adequately assess the condition of species/habitat.]

2.9 Condition

Assessment Research: [List high priority survey, monitoring, and research efforts needed to assess the current condition of species/habitat, including studies to develop measurable indicators of health and/or quality.]

Element 3: Species and Habitat Threat** Assessment

• • "THREAT" is used here synonymously with the term "Risk Factor", which is used

throughout the WAP. "Risk Factor" was adopted after this template was drafted.

NOTE: Complete and attach Form 1: Risk Exposure, Form 2: Risk Facto Ranking, and Form 4:

Local Threat Weighting. Technical assistance will be provided. Form 4 can not be completed without a map.

3.1.X [Name of Direct Threat, Th reat Category, Categorical Rank]

Complete this field only for high-ranking direct threats identified in the threat ranking procedure. Technical assistance will be provided.

(A) Exposure Pathway: [Describe the chain of causality (exposure pathway) that leads from human activity (regardless of scale or origin, e.g., local, state, regional, national, international), to a direct threat to the focal species and/or habitat, to a response in the focal species and/or habitat. Following is an example for describing the exposure pathway for wintering bats. "Recreational spelunkers that enter caves during the winter may disturb hibernating bats. This could result in the bats expending energy at a time of year when energy conservation is imperative to survival. As a result, direct mortalities may occur."]

(B) Evidence: [Provide evidence to evaluate the severity, urgency, and underlying mechanisms of the direct threat for the species or habitat

.] 3.2 Sources of Information: [Describe the process used (e.g., literature review, databases, meetings, expert review and consultation) to study threats to species/habitat that were consulted during the planning process.

Literature and other sources should be cited in text where applicable and included in the profile bibliography (Element 6).]

3.3 Extent

and Quality of Data: [Justify the level of detail provided by describing the extent and quality of existing data on the

threats to the species/habitat across the state. Clearly identify gaps in knowledge about the threats to the species/habitat.]

3.4 Threat

Assessment Research: [List high priority survey, monitoring, and research efforts needed to identify threats that are adversely impacting the species and/or habitat, regardless of scale, including potential indicators of threats and evidence of their utility.]

Element 4: Conservation Actions

NOTE: Successful implementation of conservation actions rests on two assumptions: 1) that the conservation action will change the threat (i.e., conservation performance); 2) the targeted species/habitat will benefit by the change in the supposed threat (i.e., ecological response).

Ideally, no action will be undertaken without reasonable evidence that the assumptions are true.

However, there is no assurance that this will be the case. Because of this uncertainty, all actions that are undertaken need to be designed so that the assumptions can be evaluated. Doing so will allow practitioners to adapt conservation actions (if necessary) to focus on the correct problem or the correct implementation methods. When there is insufficient information to elucidate whether a conservation action will clearly lead to a change in the threat (conservation performance) or that a change in the threat will lead to a change in the species or habitat (ecological response), then surveys, monitoring, or research should be indicated. The objectives of such research must focus on developing implementation methods to change the threat or evaluate whether or not the species/ habitat will respond beneficially to a proposed action.

4.1.X [Specific Conservation Action, Category]

For "Category," list one of the following:

Restoration and Management; Habitat Protection; Education and Outreach; Regulation and

Policy. Specific conservation actions should correspond with "Category". Examples include captive rearing, fee-simple acquisition, educational video production, revised collection permitting process, respectively.

(A) [List of Direct Threats Affected]

Must include at least one high-ranking threat described in section 3.1.

(B) Justification:

Briefly provide reasoning that the following assumptions/criteria are satisfied:

1) [the conservation action will actually impact the relevant threats in a measurable way in specific locations.] 2) [impacting those threats will actually cause a beneficial and measurable ecological response in specific populations or habitat patches] 3) [the spatial scale of the action is appropriate for the spatial scale of the threat] 4) [the timeframe of the action is appropriate for the urgency of the threat and responsiveness of the specific populations or habitat patches] 5) [the conservation action can be adapted to new information about the performance of the action to achieve the desired ecological response.]

(C) Conservation Performance Objective: [Performance describes the causal relationship between the conservation action and the problem or threat. Define the desired performance of the conservation action by identifying the scale-appropriate attribute of the human or ecological system that the action is intended to directly change, the direction of the change, the desired magnitude of the change, the desired time period for the change to occur, and an endpoint. Identify a measurable indicator of the performance of the conservation action that is directly linked to the intended change. For example, "The

objective of captive breeding is to increase th e captive population of translocated and captive reared butterflies to a minimum of 200 adults for each brood over a three-year period, and maintain the population for five years. Successful captive breeding will be indicated by the annual number of adult butterflies released into the wild."]

(D) Performance Monitoring: [Briefly describe methods for monitoring the performance indicator building on existing efforts

and including specific objectives. Provide enough detail, including locations, justification for scale, and frequency of monitoring, to facilitate the development of more detailed methods at a later date. Describe how observed levels of performance indicators will influence management decisions.]

(E) Ecological Response Objective:

[Define the desired ecological response to the conservation action by identifying the scale-appropriate attribute of the ecological system that is expected to elicit a beneficial response to the change induced by the conservation action, the desired direction of the response, the desired magnitude of the response, the desired time period for the response to occur, and an endpoint. Identify a measurable indicator of the desired ecological response that is directly linked to the benefit intended for the ecological system. For example, " The desired ecological response to captive breeding is to maintain on average a positive growth rate in the wild population until the wild population is self-sustaining. Successful population restoration will be indicated by a positive growth rate in the wild population and achievement of federal viability criteria."]

(F) Response Monitoring: [Briefly describe methods for monitoring the response indicator building on existing efforts and including specific objectives. Provide enough detail, including locations, justification for scale, and frequency of monitoring, to facilitate the development of more detailed methods at a later date. Describe how observed levels of response indicators will influence management decisions.]

(G) Implementation: [Describe implementation of the conservation action sufficiently to guide the development and execution of specific projects and programs. Identify the frequency and intensity of the action, the time frame for initiating and completing the action, specific locations, and methodology.

Describe the potential roles of state and federal agencies or local, regional, national, or international partners, and identify needs or opportunities to coordinate and collaborate with other states.

(H) Feasibility: [Categorical Rank] [Discuss the feasibility of implementing the conservation action in sufficient detail to guide the prioritization of implementation and avoid potential roadblocks. Evaluate the preparedness and expertise of the agencies and partners with relevant roles, the funding requirements, personnel resources, and public and partner interest.]

Complete ranks on Form 5: Feasibility Ranking and Form 6: Local Feasibility Weighting (map and quantitative attributes required). Technical

assistance will be provided.

4.2 Conservation

Action Research:

[When there is insufficient information to elucidate whether a conservation action will clearly lead to a change in the threat (conservation performance) or that a change in the threat will lead to a change in the species or habitat (ecological response), then surveys, monitoring, or research should be indicated. Provide enough detail to develop requests for proposals to implement research. Identify opportunities to build on existing programs.]

Element 5: References Personal communications should be cited in text using Journal of Wildlife Management formatting guidelines.

5.1 Literature

[Provide full citations in Journal of Wildlife Management format for all literature cited in text. Use Council of Biology Editors style when citing websites http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/DResourcesCITE06cbe.htm

.] 5.2 Data Sources: [Use Council of Biology Editors style when citing databases http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/DResourcesCITE06cbe.htm

.] Element 6: List of Figures [Provide a list of figures with caption. If appropriate, include a statement of credit at the end of the caption (e.g., "Photo by R. Dolbeer.", "Photo courtesy of United States Fish and Wildlife Service.")]

DRAFT 9/30/2005

Appendix M Directions for Identifying and Ranking Risks Using Forms 1 & 2 PURPOSE OF IDENTIFYING AND RANKING RISKS

1. Describe risks in a consistent, standardized format to facilitate planning decisions. 2. Provide a tool that will allow NHFG to objectively prioritize actions within and among levels of the ecological hierarchy (e.g., within species, within habitat, and among species and habitats). 3. Provide a source of data that can be queried to obtain a comprehensive overview of risks.

FORM 1: RISK EXPOSURE Complete Form 1 or provide comments on a completed draft of Form 1 using the following guidelines, and return it to NHFG:

a. SPATIAL SCALE: Identify all possible risk s, regardless of spatial scale, for each conservation target (i.e., species or habitat). The scale of the risk should be commensurate with the scale of the target. Broad scale, pervasive risks like global climate change, acid rain, and heavy metal contamination should be assessed if exposure can be linked to a stress in the conservation target, even though it may be difficult to identify specific points on the exposure pathway for a given target. It is recognized that ultimately it will be impractical to plan for such large-scale issues within the context of a particular species or habitat; therefore major statewide risks will be compiled and explicitly addressed in a section of the Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy (CWS) specifically dedicated to statewide risks. As such, no conservation actions should be provided for statewide risks within a species or habitat profile.

b. TEMPORAL SCALE: Identify all possible risks that wildlife are currently or potentially exposed to. Limit potential risks to those with underlying causes that currently exist and are likely to increase with current human population patterns. The 'timing' field could also be interpreted as a rough indicator of the CWS planning horizon. The upper bar for strategy development is 15 years. Some broad scale, long-range issues (e.g., climate change, acid deposition) will receive attention

elsewhere in the plan.

c. ECOLOGICAL SCALE: Risks that cause stress to individual species should be evaluated at the species level. For habitats, address risks that stress entire groups of species, such as small mammals, large mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, natural communities, or habitat structure/composition.

d. RISK CATEGORIES: Consider all categories of risk identified in TABLE 2 "Generic Threats in Different Biome Types", but only list risks that actually or potentially cause stress to the target.

e. CAUSALITY: Definitions of the terms used to describe exposure pathways are

given in TABLE 1. The pathways of risk exposure are continuous chains of causality that lead from human action (usually) to impacts on a conservation target. There are an infinite number of discrete points along the exposure pathway, so it is expected that there will be variation in the underlying causes, direct risks, stresses, and targets that individuals identify for any given pathway. The ability to plan conservation actions effectively is limited by knowledge of the causes of ecological stress and effects on targets. It will be most useful to identify the underlying causes and direct risks for which it is most practical to develop and implement actions to abate the risk. Likewise, it will be most useful to identify stresses or aspects of the conservation target that can be easily monitored to observe a response to changes in the risk.

f. EVIDENCE: As much as possible, cite evidence in support of your assessment of

each risk that has been identified.

1. Completed forms and comments will be compiled and condensed by NHFG or the profile writer to screen for redundancy and collate underlying causes, direct risks, and stresses under the most appropriate categories.

FORM 2: RISK FACTOR RANKING FORM

1. Transfer the list of direct risks from the final FORM 1 to FORM 2 (this may have been done already by NHFG or the profile writer).

2. Fill in scores for the factors described below. The factors are rarely constant over time. Onset of loss of function in the target will be used as an ecological constant across all assessments of risks for all species and habitats. Loss of function may be defined as an adverse change (stress) in the trend of a critical process in the life history of an organism (e.g., reduced survival, reproduction, or foraging, etc.) or ecology of a habitat (e.g., shifting composition, structure, or productivity, etc.). Onset occurs at the inflection point for the changing trend. To truly signify onset, such a change would have to be sustained and exceed the normal range of variation. If onset has already occurred, TIMING should receive the score for 'current' (4), and scores for all other factors should be based on their current values. Otherwise, TIMING should be scored based on the projected time of onset, and all other factor scores based on their projected values at the timing of onset.

In some instances quantitative statewide risk data are available to assist with scoring the factors. Currently, for example, quantitative data are available to assess risks caused by air and water pollution, road impacts, wind energy, climate change, development, and population growth. However, little reliable quantitative data exists beyond these issues. As such, expert opinion will be used to augment quantitative data to assist with making conservation planning decisions.

3. MAGNITUDE FACTORS

a. SCOPE: A measure of the percent

(%) of the statewide distribution of the target that may be exposed to the risk or number affected relative to the total area or number). A risk that is very localized, therefore not impacting a large percentage of the affected target, should score lowest, whereas a pervasive broad scale risk should score high. Consider whether outside factors like land protection influences the potential scope of the risk. b. SEVERITY: A measure of the intensity of the stress impacting the proportion of the target exposed (as defined by SCOPE) to the risk. Severity is expressed as the percent (%) of the exposed population/habitat that will realize loss of function as defined above (e.g., mortality, loss of viability, failed dispersal, starvation, competitive exclusion, community succession, etc.). A stress inducing a very low rate of lost function in the exposed population should be

assigned a low score while a stress inducing a high loss of function should be assigned a high score.

4. URGENCY FACTORS a. TIMING: Time until the target begins to lose function (loss of function is defined above). If a risk already has caused a loss of function in the target, it

should be considered current, and score highest. If a risk is expected to cause a loss of function more than 15 years from now, it should score lowest. b. LIKELIHOOD: The probability that the risk will actually be manifested as defined above (e.g., at the levels projected for scope, severity, and timing).

The likelihood score increases as probability increases. c. INFORMATION: A measure of the quality and reliability of evidence that the risk will be manifested as defined above (e.g., at the levels projected for scope, severity, and timing). The information score increases as the quality and reliability of evidence increases.

5. OVERALL RISK RANK: Ranked factors will be applied to a formula that calculates the overall RISK RANK (this will be done automatically if using the available Excel spreadsheets). The factors used to measure risks are reduced to magnitude (scope, severity) and urgency (timing, likelihood, information), by taking their means, and are then given a multiplicative relationship and scaled to 4 to retain the original scoring scale:

RISK RANK= (((a+b)/2)/4)((c+d+e)/3) where a=SCOPE score, b=SEVERITY score, c=TIMING score, d=LIKELIHOOD score, and e=INFORMATION score.

6. INTERPRETING RISK RANK: In the published literature, there are many examples of arithmetic and rule-based approaches that summarize the factors influencing risks.

Most of these conservation-planning tools use a combination of weights, means, and additive or multiplicative interaction of factors. The resultant ordering varies according to how the summary algorithm or formula is defined. It is acknowledged that the summary rank is a planning and decision-making tool, not a true quantitative measure. Therefore, precise ordering is not the intended outcome. The purpose of the ranking process is to provide a consistent basis for comparing risks across all species and habitats, and for placing those risks into categories of appropriate conservation action.

7. CATEGORICAL CLASSES: For this planning effort, the RISK RANK score will be used to assign the risk to a categorical class and decide which risks to plan to address in the current planning period with focused conservation strategies. When a score for a given risk falls near the threshold for two classes, careful scrutiny of the ranks given for each factor is warranted to ensure that the potency of the risk is being ranked appropriately relative to the other risks being ranked. When evaluating your scores, consider risks in the following context:

a. Without action, CATASTROPHIC risks (3.25-4.00) will in the near future almost certainly result in the widespread complete loss of populations/habitat patches, with statewide extirpation already looming on the horizon. Immediate action is necessary to secure the conservation target, and there is not enough time to wait for better information.

b. Without action, CRITICAL risks (2.50-3.24) will in the near future almost certainly result in widespread degradation of populations/habitats, resulting in

an increasing risk of statewide extirpation. Action is necessary to control the risk, but initiating research to improve the efficacy of actions is, in some cases, justifiable over immediately initiating abatement.

c. Without action, SERIOUS risks (1.75-2.49) may in the near future degrade some populations/habitats, with a very low risk of statewide extirpation. The risk may need to be controlled at the local level in the short term, but it is advisable to first conduct research to obtain more accurate information about the risk or wait until changes in the level of the risk can be measured statewide.

d. Without action, CHRONIC risks (0-1.74) may degrade some populations/habitats at a level that is currently sustainable. The risk may need to be controlled in the long term, but currently it is reasonable to plan to re-evaluate the risk later.

Conservation actions should only be generated for risks ranked as "CATSTROPHIC" or "CRITICAL." However, if you find that you have no serious or critical risks, then address those higher ranked "moderate" ones.

8. Where data are available, quantitative analys es will be conducted to check results. As an additional check, risks assessments are nested within all species, habitats, and landscapes. It would be very difficult for a significant risk to a conservation target to be missed at each of these hierarchical filters. For example, on a hypothetical landscape scale, lack of concrete information limits our ability to develop a strategy to address climate change or even project the magnitude of stress induced by it, which may result in climate change receiving a "seriou" rather than a "critical" overall rank. Effort to address such a landscape risk would be allocated to informing regional, national, and global planners of our findings and by supporting regional monitoring and planning efforts. However, in some instances, climate change may be well documented in a specific location, with a fairly predictable pattern of high magnitude stress for a well-known species. In such cases a resulting risk rank of "critical" would be justified. In these cases, effort may be allocated to the critical species risk by immediately initiating research on rates of habitat change and evaluating preservation of the species in zoos before it becomes extinct.

Completed risk ranking forms will be compiled and condensed by NHFG or the profile writer. Scores from individuals will be averaged-.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute to NH's Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Strategy!

Ta bl e 1. D e f i niti on s (f r o m Salefsk y et a l , 2003).

Table 2. T h reat Categ o ri es (f rom Sal e f sky et al , 2003).

Appendix N Risk Factor Ranking Template RISK CATEGORY: [Name of category or challenging issue] AUTHOR: [Name]

1. Definition: [120 word maximum] [State the problem in general terms, broadly covering underlying causes and typical direct risks to wildlife included under this risk category.]

2. Expert Opinion: [100 word maximum] [In terms that are consistent with the categorical values of ranked factors, use the provided risk ranking summary table to textually summarize scope, severity, timing, likelihood, information and overall ranks provided by experts for affected species and habitats. According to expert opinion, [insert name of risk][insert scope descriptor, i.e.

extensively, somewhat extensively, somewhat locally, locally]

affects species and habitats of conservation concern in NH. Impacts will [insert likelihood descriptor, i.e. certainly, likely, possibly, unlikely] be [insert severity descriptor, i.e. catastrophic, severe, moderate, mild] for [insert names of highest ranking HABITATS] in the [insert timeframe, i.e. immediately, short-term, near-term, long-term]. [insert Names of highest ranking HABITATS] impacts are [insert information field descriptor, i.e. well documented, somewhat documented, weakly documented, undocumented].

3. Known Wildlife Exposure Pathways: [min=2 pathways, max=5 pathways, not to exceed 600 words total] a) [Describe the exposure pathway and supporting evidence for the risk as described in Element 3 of profiles for the best-documented and highest-ranking habitat and related habitats or species. Be sure to synthesize similar pathways, even if they have different target species and habitats.] b) [Describe the exposure pathway and supporting evidence for the risk as described in Element 3 of profiles for the best-documented and highest-ranking habitat and related habitats or species. Be sure to synthesize similar pathways, even if they have different target species and habitats.] c) [Describe the exposure pathway and supporting evidence for the risk as described in Element 3 of profiles for the best-documented and highest-ranking habitat and related habitats or species. Be sure to synthesize similar pathways, even if they have different target species and habitats.]

4. Strategies: [To be provided by NHFG]

5. Research Needs: [min=2 items, max=5 items, not to exceed 200 words total] a) [List the highest priority research item identified in field 3.4 of affected species and habitat profiles.]

b) [List the NEXT highest priority research item identified in field 3.4 of affected species and habitat profiles.] c) [List the NEXT highest priority research item identified in field 3.4 of affected species and habitat profiles.]

7. Rank Frequency By Class: [To be provided by NHFG]

8. Summary of Ranks: [To be provided by NHFG]

9. Literature Cited: [JWM format, not to exceed 20 citations]

Appendix O Strategy Template

[STRATEGY CODE][STRATEGY HEADING] AUTHOR: [Name]

DESCRIPTION: [Describe the general logistics, scope, and variety of activities encompassed by this strategy.] [150 WORDS]

GOAL: [Describe the broad purpose or legacy of the strategy. Include broad patterns of ecological, social, or political response that represent a long-term statewide benefit to wildlife.] [150 WORDS]

[CODE] OBJECTIVE: [Describe a specific action that will in the short term directly change an ecological, social, or political factor that drives the cond ition of an aspect of wildlife health in NH.] [100 WORDS]

[CODE] (A) EXPECTED BENEFITS: [Explain how wildlife or wildlife habitats will directly or indirectly benefit over time as a result of the action. List species and habitats identified in the provided Strategy Summary Table that will benefit most from the action.] [100 WORDS]

[CODE] (B) AFFECTED RISKS: [List the most problematic risks identified in the provided Strategy Summary Table that will be affected by the action.] [100 WORDS]

[CODE] (C) EXISTING RESOURCES: [List resources already in place to implement the objective, including funding sources, personnel, training, facilities, equipment, and communications media. State whether existing resources are more than adequate, adequate, or limiting.] [100 WORDS]

[CODE] (D) CRITICAL INPUTS: [List additional inputs, including funding, personnel, training, facilities, equipment, and communications media, necessary to achieve the objective and improve limiting factors identified above.] [100 WORDS]

[CODE] (E) ORGANIZATION:

[Describe the current and/or potential roles of state and federal agencies or local, regional, national, or international partners, and identify needs or opportunities to coordinate and collaborate with other states. Clearly identify legislation, rules, formal agreements, and programs necessary to organize supporting partnerships or clarify authority.] [200 WORDS] [CODE] (F) FEASIBILITY: [Insert the score from the feasibility ranking form.]

[CODE] (G) INITIATION: [Immediate, 1 year, <2 years, <5 years, >5 years]

[CODE] (H) DURATION: [1 year, <2 years, <5 years, <10 years, >10 years]

FEASIBILITY RANKING STRATEGY: [CODE][STRATEGIC HEADING

]COMPLETED BY: [NAME]4=Certain 4=<$50,0004=Ver y Functional4=Hi g hl y 4=Support >> 4=Well Documented 3=Likel y 3=$50,000-3=Functional3=Accessible3=Support >= 3=Somewhat 2=Somewhat. 2=$250,000

-2=Somewhat 2=Somewhat 2=Support <= 2=Weakl y 1=Unlikel y 1=>$1,250,0001=Non-functional1=Inaccessible1=Support << 1=Undocumented OBJECTIVE EFFICACY 1 RESOURCES 2 ORGANIZATION 3 EXPERTISE 4 MOTIVATION 5 INFORMATION 6 Summary Rank[code][Restore/Maintain Natural Flow Regimes]344334 3.06 1 Expected success of the proposed action in abating the targeted risk or improving wildlife health 2 Estimated cost of implementing actions to achieve the objective 3 Experience and efficiency of existing or developing organizational structures poised to implement the action 4 Availability of skills and knowledge necessary to see implementation through 5 Anticipated level of buy-in of all involved public and private interests 6 Quality or reliability of the evidence, experience, or factual knowledge supporting the scores provided 7 Summary rank= ((a+b/2)/4)((c+d+e+f)/4), where a=efficacy score, b=resources score, c=organization score, d=expertise score, e=m otivation, f=information